PDA

View Full Version : Is STR really that good?



Lord_Kimboat
2007-01-18, 10:36 PM
WotC seems to think that Str is the best stat. After all, any race or class which increases Str has some pretty serious negatives. Half-Orcs are the only core race that gets a Str bonus and they lose two other stats supposedly to balance it. I know in Star Wars there is a race that loses Str and gets two other stats plus several other abilities to balance it.

To me, Str is balanced all by itself. It does add to melee hit and damage, increases carrying cap, but it doesn't help a saving throw and has about 5 skills that use it as a modifier.

What is everyone else's opinion? Am I just ignorant of some hidden advantage of Str?

Suzaku
2007-01-18, 10:38 PM
Not mention one of the classes that's tied with Cleric in terms of power is druid and their dump stat is Str.

mikeejimbo
2007-01-18, 10:39 PM
I'm rather inclined to agree with you. Sure, it improves your damage, but at high levels, a spell will do much more damage. And things like Weapon Finesse make it not the only stat that increases your chance to hit.

Indoril
2007-01-18, 10:41 PM
I think it's because so many classes use Strength as their key or one of their key abilities. Than and as you said it increases load capacity, melee damage, ranged damage on hurled weapons and composite bows. The five skills it adds to are fairly key skills. In order to adventure you need to be able to climb, jump, and swim to some degree. Sure magic can supplement all of this, but magic has duration and limitation that sheer strength does not.

In my opinion though, Charisma is the most important stat. Why kill something when I can talk it into being my friend (or at least backing down)?

Amotis
2007-01-18, 10:41 PM
Weapon Finesse is a bit counterproductive, no? It seems that way, but correct me if I'm wrong.

krossbow
2007-01-18, 10:41 PM
Wizards of the coast is on crack. Strength isn't nearly waht they rate it.


Generally, most stats are equal (with charisma possibly lower, due to most classes being able to dump it far too easily).

mikeejimbo
2007-01-18, 10:43 PM
Weapon Finesse is a bit counterproductive, no? It seems that way, but correct me if I'm wrong.

I see what you mean, because it only adds to your chance to hit. In that case, it seems more useful when hitting is more important than doing damage. (Such as taking Weapon Finesse: Ray)

Suzaku
2007-01-18, 10:46 PM
I see what you mean, because it only adds to your chance to hit. In that case, it seems more useful when hitting is more important than doing damage. (Such as taking Weapon Finesse: Ray)
Did you mean weapon focus ray?

Amotis
2007-01-18, 10:47 PM
I see what you mean, because it only adds to your chance to hit. In that case, it seems more useful when hitting is more important than doing damage. (Such as taking Weapon Finesse: Ray)

Or when you have no control of the dmg anyway, aka the same example you gave. I think he ment touch attack?

I think STR is treated a very good because it fits the nitch of any good fighter. Dex based fighters are usually behind because they're fighting a double score war for two things. Str fighters are killing two birds with one stone. Even with tumble and other good dex skills mixed in I still don't see the worth. Weap Finesse is limited to only a few weapons and only a handful are worth using. Str fighters, however, can only go up and up into more exotic more bigger weapons.

mikeejimbo
2007-01-18, 10:48 PM
Did you mean weapon focus ray?

Dear Lord, yes, sorry. I was just reading the Weapon Focus description and then talking about Weapon Finesse and it's late at night.

Mike_G
2007-01-18, 10:50 PM
Weapon Finesse is a bit counterproductive, no? It seems that way, but correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't see why it would be.

If you have a much higher Dex than Strength, it makes perfect sense. It's very useful for a rogue or swashbuckling type. It can apply to touch spells, so if you do that kind of thing, and have a higher dex than strength, (and what caster doesn't) it's worth it.

Rogues and mages need every plus to hit they can get, and usually don't rely on strength for damage, so it's a perfectly good feat.

Amotis
2007-01-18, 10:54 PM
I don't see why it would be.

If you have a much higher Dex than Strength, it makes perfect sense. It's very useful for a rogue or swashbuckling type. It can apply to touch spells, so if you do that kind of thing, and have a higher dex than strength, (and what caster doesn't) it's worth it.

Rogues and mages need every plus to hit they can get, and usually don't rely on strength for damage, so it's a perfectly good feat.


But if we're talking about why STR is so good, if it is at all, then weapon finesse would be a reason why STR is not that good, and I would respond with that STR is good because weapon finesse can't match a straight STR build. That weap fin may be good for certain situation but that doesn't match DEX with STR.

mikeejimbo
2007-01-18, 10:57 PM
what caster doesn't

Clerics. Heavy armor doesn't leave much in the way of Dex mods, and Clerics are known to hold their own in melee.

Machete
2007-01-18, 10:57 PM
Agile Athlete + Weapon Finesse = Strength only applies to carrying and damage now

Strength isn't what it used to be.

Hamster_Ninja
2007-01-18, 10:57 PM
Weapon finesse is good when you have a lot of key abilities on dex (such as AC since your wearing light armor or reflex saves) and most of your damage is coming from somewhere else. It saves you from some mad (like rogues, nearly all of their damage is coming from the sneak attack anywaysand boosting dex is going to be more beneficial than an increased carrying capacity and a few more damage.

Indoril
2007-01-18, 10:57 PM
But if we're talking about why STR is so good, if it is at all, then weapon finesse would be a reason why STR is not that good, and I would respond with that STR is good because weapon finesse can't match a straight STR build. That weap fin may be good for certain situation but that doesn't match DEX with STR.

But Dex gives you AC, Initiative bonuses, bonuses to more and more important skills than Str, and a higher ranged attack bonus (and as you've said melee if Weapon Finesse is taken).

Looks like Dex is actually better than Str, judging by all of that.

Amotis
2007-01-18, 10:58 PM
But Dex gives you AC, Initiative bonuses, bonuses to more and more important skills than Str, and a higher ranged attack bonus (and as you've said melee if Weapon Finesse is taken).

Looks like Dex is actually better than Str, judging by all of that.

But if we place importance on things I think damage, which dex doesn't add in to at all, is really near the top.

TheOOB
2007-01-18, 11:03 PM
I'm sorry, but considering how hard ability enhancements are to get, STR isn't all that awesome. Even with a 2H weapon it's only +1 to hit and +1.5 to damage every 2 STR. It's not that huge of a bonus, especially since spellcasters and finesse fighters don't even need the stat except for carrying and capacity. A Half-Orc would still be a little weak if they just had -2 Charisma to offset their +2 Strength bonus, and CHA is the most worthless stat.

Indoril
2007-01-18, 11:06 PM
But if we place importance on things I think damage, which dex doesn't add in to at all, is really near the top.

Damage is nothing if you can't get in a hit first or if you're getting hit too much. Then someone with a bow and say, rapid shot or multishot and a high dex could do a great deal of damage in a round and stay out of melee range even.

krossbow
2007-01-18, 11:07 PM
Dude, I've never had a character who DIDN'T have strength as a dump stat.

Indoril
2007-01-18, 11:08 PM
...and CHA is the most worthless stat.

Cha isn't the "most worthless stat." Many people just don't know how to use it right or simply choose to use something more combat oriented as opposed to roleplay oriented.

Dhavaer
2007-01-18, 11:15 PM
Cha isn't the "most worthless stat." Many people just don't know how to use it right or simply choose to use something more combat oriented as opposed to roleplay oriented.

*chokes*

Charisma is good for character interaction, an entirely seperate beast from roleplaying.

TheOOB
2007-01-18, 11:21 PM
Charisma is the most worthless stat from a mechanical standpoint, unless you are a class with CHA based abilities cha only does one thing, increase skills. Now keeping in mind that it doesn't even increase as many skills as say INT, and that the ability bonus to skill checks becomes less and less important as you gain levels, it is fair to say that charisma is the most useless skill.

Every other skill has some other direct benefit it gives to your character.

Also, like Dhavaer said, CHA is useful for playing a socially skilled character, it has nothing to do with roleplay.

Besides, playing a D&D character who isn't "combat oriented" is like playing a pacifist socialist state in RISK, it doesn't work. D&D is all about the combat, and if your not basing your character around combat, you are playing the wrong system.

Zincorium
2007-01-18, 11:24 PM
Cha isn't the "most worthless stat." Many people just don't know how to use it right or simply choose to use something more combat oriented as opposed to roleplay oriented.

It is for most characters a worthless stat from the standpoint of character survival. And I find roleplaying a low charisma character to be a blast, especially when I'm allowed to enrage the NPCs. The fact that I couldn't succeed on a diplomacy check to save my life with several of my characters (not all, by any means) doesn't make a character 'bad' for roleplaying. If you rely on rolling dice to determine all social actions, that ain't roleplaying any more than using power attack is.

Suzaku
2007-01-18, 11:28 PM
Charisma is the most worthless stat from a mechanical standpoint, unless you are a class with CHA based abilities cha only does one thing, increase skills. Now keeping in mind that it doesn't even increase as many skills as say INT, and that the ability bonus to skill checks becomes less and less important as you gain levels, it is fair to say that charisma is the most useless skill.

Every other skill has some other direct benefit it gives to your character.

Also, like Dhavaer said, CHA is useful for playing a socially skilled character, it has nothing to do with roleplay.

Besides, playing a D&D character who isn't "combat oriented" is like playing a pacifist socialist state in RISK, it doesn't work. D&D is all about the combat, and if your not basing your character around combat, you are playing the wrong system.
Yes because in D&D it is always discourage to disguise yourself and bluff people to gain access to places that normally will never happen. Hell even using diplomacy to ask the king for some sort favors or more loot is out of the question because it's not part of the spirit of the game.

krossbow
2007-01-18, 11:33 PM
Eh; sometimes the DM just is pissy and hates letting you do incredibly outrageous things (Give me free things! -eloquently- Surrender!).



Now, combat panache is good for it though.

Quirinus_Obsidian
2007-01-18, 11:39 PM
Best character I ever had had an STR of 2. She had a CON of 28, but still. STR is over rated. =_)

Lord_Kimboat
2007-01-18, 11:40 PM
Yes because in D&D it is always discourage to disguise yourself and bluff people to gain access to places that normally will never happen. Hell even using diplomacy to ask the king for some sort favors or more loot is out of the question because it's not part of the spirit of the game.

Granted, this does depend on your DM. When I DM, I'm quite happy for high Cha players to make diplomacy checks to stop fights before they happen or use disguise + bluff to sneak past, etc. I've even had the occasional fighter type complain that they haven't had a 'decent' fight during a game. However, at this point one or two of the cha types usually say that they've usually had to sit around while the fighters bash heads so this 'turnabout' is fair play.

mikeejimbo
2007-01-18, 11:40 PM
Best character I ever had had an STR of 2. She had a CON of 28, but still. STR is over rated. =_)

Ooh, what class?

Lord_Kimboat
2007-01-18, 11:42 PM
In order to adventure you need to be able to climb, jump, and swim to some degree. Sure magic can . . .

I'm not sure about this. I can count on one hand the number of times my 11th level ranger has had to use these three skills. Although, recently (last level) I bought boots of levitation which gets rid of the need for all of these checks.

Kantolin
2007-01-18, 11:42 PM
Personally, strength isn't all it's cracked up to be.

It's certainly not worth all the crap the poor half-orc gets over, say, a dwarf.

Insofar as most important stat, I'd personally say Con. 20 Str 18 Con is less relevant than 18 Str 20 Con. Everyone needs con. Str is damage, and while that's important, you can get damage out of a ton of things. A lower strength unit can still seriously contribute in the damage department with the typical Power Attack combo and a two handed weapon.

Suzaku
2007-01-18, 11:42 PM
Eh; sometimes the DM just is pissy and hates letting you do incredibly outrageous things (Give me free things! -eloquently- Surrender!).



Now, combat panache is good for it though.

It's not usually outrages, for example the King handed pick you or perhaps a General or a crime boss offers you 500 gold to complete something it's not unreasonable to roll diplomacy check to ask for 750 gold. Or lets say you're trespassing on NPC A neighborhood/turf, you know that person tried to kill NPC B and you're on your way to kill NPC B, it's not unreasonable to convince the NPC A not to attack you and let you go.

paigeoliver
2007-01-18, 11:48 PM
I have always found wisdom to be the most worthless stat myself.

Marshall class allows to many awesome options for combat classes to even consider cha as the worst score. Plus it has a major effect on the noncombat portion of the game.

krossbow
2007-01-18, 11:50 PM
awsome options? Only the crappy minor aura's benefit from it!


Besides, marshals suck pretty bad; they don't get near as much as a simple warblade using white dove styles.



and dragon shaman's just make marshals cry.


[Scrubbed]
________
HOTBOX VAPORIZER (http://www.vaporshop.com/hotbox-vaporizer.html)

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-18, 11:55 PM
I'm rather inclined to agree with you. Sure, it improves your damage, but at high levels, a spell will do much more damage.

No, it WON'T. Melee types outdamage spellcasters. Spellcasters aren't that great at damage, and its a crappy option for them anyway.

You need damage to kill things. If you're a Melee Guy, killing things is your job.


[Scrubbed]

oriong
2007-01-19, 12:12 AM
It's actually fair to say that Strength grants bonuses to Armor Class as well as attack and damage. The bonus is just indirect (the ability to wear heavier armor) and benefits only certain classes (those able to wear heavy armor and use their class abilities.

That said, while Dex and Con both have excellent defensive abilities (bonuses to saves, hp, AC, etc.) typically it is better to have active abilities, which is exactly what Strength gives you (bonuses to attack and damage, active skills, and by far the majority of ability checks). Dex does give some 'active' benefits in the form of skill bonuses, but most of those are limited to certain classes.

So, it is reasonable to say that all the physical abilities are equal to one another. Strength may give slightly less bonuses, but it's bonuses are for active abilities and in D+D it is better to have the ability to DO something than have the ability to simply resist it. The game is structured around active rather than passive abilities.

Now, that said, strength is not worth MORE than Dex or Con. Really they're rated about the same (all physical scores are better than mental scores). Only the Dwarves (+2 Con, -2 Cha) break this rule, and they do break it rather badly. But otherwise the half-orc is just following the belief that physical > mental.

mikeejimbo
2007-01-19, 12:17 AM
No, it WON'T. Melee types outdamage spellcasters. Spellcasters aren't that great at damage, and its a crappy option for them anyway.

Really? Don't fireballs do like, 20d6 damage at 20th level? That seems like a lot... surely they can't output that as often as the fighter, but still... it's 20d6 damage.

But what do I know, I always play healers. :smalltongue:

Desaril
2007-01-19, 12:20 AM
Combat is D&D does give an advantage to STR because is usually helps both hit bonuses and damage. However, CHA is the more important skill in a realistic game world. Even in feudal society, you've got to work with people.

If DMs started charging 10% more to buy items because you can't negotiate well and enemies attack you more often because you "rub them the wrong way" you would probably change your mind.

The problem is that we often roleplay (or don't roleplay) Charisma according to our own stat not the PCs. The same with INT. We probably play smarter than our characters. Charisma is a dump stat because there are not rules that penalize it.

If, as some posters mentioned, CHA could be used to avoid fights (and achieve the same results, i.e XP and treasure) CHA would be the #1 stat, becuase once negotiations fail, you can still turn to the sword.

Dhavaer
2007-01-19, 12:22 AM
Really? Don't fireballs do like, 20d6 damage at 20th level? That seems like a lot... surely they can't output that as often as the fighter, but still... it's 20d6 damage.

But what do I know, I always play healers. :smalltongue:

That only an average of 70 for a 7th level spell, I think (Delayed Blast Fireball). A twohand power attacker will have no problem exceeding that.

oriong
2007-01-19, 12:43 AM
Yeah, and don't forget high level fighters get multiple attacks. Even if they only do 2d6+20 (average of 27) they can get 4 attacks a round, if all hit that's an average of 108 damage. And 2d6+20 is, I'm sure, not even close to the damage output some fighters can manage.

TheOOB
2007-01-19, 12:49 AM
Yes because in D&D it is always discourage to disguise yourself and bluff people to gain access to places that normally will never happen. Hell even using diplomacy to ask the king for some sort favors or more loot is out of the question because it's not part of the spirit of the game.

I never said D&D doesn't encourage you to use charismatic solutions to problums, but the D&D system is a combat oriented, rules heavy "crunchy" system. Playing a D&D campaign without a good amount of combat(or playing a character who isn't good in combat) is like beating a nail in with a ruler, it can be done, but it's silly and inefficient when a hammer would do the job much better.

MetalKelt
2007-01-19, 12:53 AM
Wizards of the coast is on crack. Strength isn't nearly waht they rate it.

Well, IMHO the reason strength is rated so highly now has a historical background. Back in 2ed a bonus to strength mattered alot more once you got past 18 strength. The bonus increased rather rapidly at that point, though now in 3ed, with the bonus spread linearly, its significantly less powerful.

Yakk
2007-01-19, 01:00 AM
Go back to PHBI rules.

Assume Fighters are no weaker than Wizards.

Notice that there are no races with any bonus to any casting stat.

Now:
Dex: Grants AC, but many melee-combat classes can wear armor instead. The standard armor table with Full Plate makes 12 dex "enough".

You can finess a weapon, but that only gives you to-hit not damage. Even with a feat, strength is better.

Str: With a 2 H PA build, each strength is:
+1.5 damage
+1 to hit, which can become +2 to damage
---
A total of +3.5 to damage per attack, or better if +to hit is more optimal.

Con: Each +1 con mod is +1 HP/level -- meanwhile, +1 to str at L 11 (with 3 attacks) can boost damage by +10.5 per round (less, because not all attacks hit).

...

Remember, you don't cost stat bonuses based on how often they are useful. You cost stat bonuses based on how useful they are optimally. And +str is optimally used by Barbarians, Fighters, Melee Rangers and Paladins.

You cost stat penalties by how hard it is to dump in the stat and ignore it.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-19, 01:01 AM
Really? Don't fireballs do like, 20d6 damage at 20th level? That seems like a lot... surely they can't output that as often as the fighter, but still... it's 20d6 damage.

But what do I know, I always play healers. :smalltongue:

That may seem like a lot, but really, it's 70 average damage.

A core-only fighter can easily get 2d6+40 at 20th. With five attacks per round--speed or a haste weapon... yeah.

Damage is a caster's worst option.

Merlin the Tuna
2007-01-19, 01:17 AM
Charging has cheese, too. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=401662)

Casters do direct damage best against mobs thanks to area of effect spells, but against single targets, melee types win that one hands down.

Also, Wood Elves get a straight +2 STR/-2 INT on top of the normal Elf modifiers; the Half-Orc just gets screwed. (For extra sadness, make a Dragonborn Wood Elf -- the Dex & Con even out, so the Str/Int changes are all you're left with)

AtomicKitKat
2007-01-19, 01:19 AM
Strength is at least equal to Intelligence. Except that Intelligence, like Constitution, scales with levels(more skill points) while damage from Strength doesn't. :/

TheOOB
2007-01-19, 01:22 AM
It's hard for 2 Str to be overpowered because if provides a linear bonus, each point of STR mod is as good as the last. Compared to spellcasting stats which add at least one spell per day (up to 9th level), and increase spell save DC of all spells, including 9th level spells. Spellcasting stats get better the more you put into it.

purple gelatinous cube o' Doom
2007-01-19, 01:23 AM
Weapon Finesse is a bit counterproductive, no? It seems that way, but correct me if I'm wrong.

It's not if you play a dex fighter such as a swashbuckler, or maybe a rogue. If just have to have the right class/character, it is very effective. As to the argument of the thread about STR. Well it all depends on the class you play largely. If you play a fighter or some derivation of that, then yes it really is that good. But if you're play a caster, then no. Depending on your make of a ranger or a cleric, it could be inbetween.

The_Pope
2007-01-19, 01:31 AM
I suppose WotC is trying to go on the fact that all classes pretty much use Strength. Melee types for their combat, casters for touch spells, and so on. But its kinda a silly assumption, when Con is easily one of the most important stats. I'd like to meet the guy who says "Constitution?! We don't need no stinking constitution!" Sure you can dump Strength, you can dump Charisma, Wisdom, Intelligence, hell, even Dexterity (well, as long as one of those isnt something your class depends on), but I pity the fool who dumps Constitution. Because nothing sucks more than subtracting from your rolled hit points per level.

paigeoliver
2007-01-19, 01:39 AM
Plus that 70 damage is only on a failed save against an opponent with no resistance you your energy type. Zero damage if they have evasion.

Although to realistically compare the spell should be empowered to 30d6. We are comparing the wizards big hit against an equal level melee character.

30d6 is 105 damage. We will use 60 percent of that total to account for successful saves, evasion, and energy resistance. So that is 63 damage.

Your pure core fighter 20 with no dirty tricks WITHOUT power attack is tossing out 112 per round.

(We are assuming 26 STR after magic items and level buffs, a +5 greatsword, boots of haste or other form of haste and greater weapon specialization), and he is getting a +2 to hit from something else (bard song, spell, something).

We assume his opponent has an armor class of 36 (calculated by taking the average armor class of all CR 20 SRD creatures. We finally assume he rolls a 10 on all his attack rolls.

So he takes 5 attacks at +37/+37/+32/+27 and +22 and hits with 4 of them. Each attack does 2d6+21 damage for 28 average. 4 hits means 112 damage. If he power attacks for 5 he dishes out 114 damage instead. Those damage totals are the super high AC CR 20 monsters. He will probably more than likely be involved with fights against multiple lower CR enemies, which will have lower armor classes, which will then bump his damage.

You will never see anyone playing that fighter though, melee characters of that level are usually good for a lot more damage than that.

paigeoliver
2007-01-19, 01:42 AM
I have a Marshall character who dumped CON. He was made on 28 point buy and has an 8 CON. So far he has made it up to almost 7th level without dying (and that is in the Living Greyhawk campaign, which only awards you about 1/3rd of the XP you would actually earn if they used the REAL XP rules, so in a normal game he would have retired at 20th without dying).


I suppose WotC is trying to go on the fact that all classes pretty much use Strength. Melee types for their combat, casters for touch spells, and so on. But its kinda a silly assumption, when Con is easily one of the most important stats. I'd like to meet the guy who says "Constitution?! We don't need no stinking constitution!" Sure you can dump Strength, you can dump Charisma, Wisdom, Intelligence, hell, even Dexterity (well, as long as one of those isnt something your class depends on), but I pity the fool who dumps Constitution. Because nothing sucks more than subtracting from your rolled hit points per level.

Seffbasilisk
2007-01-19, 02:24 AM
Something to also take into account, Strength can be applied to a number of ranged attacks with the feat 'Bruthal Throw'

Saph
2007-01-19, 04:52 AM
D&D involves combat. Combat usually requires killing things. The easiest, fastest, and most efficient way to kill things is to have a good weapon and a high Strength score. Hence Strength is important.

It's fine for one or two characters in a party to dump Strength, but speaking from experience, you can get in all sorts of trouble if you don't have at least two decent frontline fighters.

There are ways to get around needing Strength, but most really aren't that good. When you pump up your Strength, you're adding both to your attack bonus and your damage bonus. Simple and effective. I've played many, many characters with Strength as a dump stat, but in every case I've needed to work closely with the fighters to survive.

- Saph

Leush
2007-01-19, 05:26 AM
I'm in the "people overrate strength" camp. Why? Because damage isn't the be all and end all. Well it is, but there are more efficient be all and end alls. I'd go so far to say that Char is the most powerful skills, as it lets you talk your way out of a fight as well as throw save-or-die or save or suck spells like there's no tommorow, and make certain will saves, but I won't, since I'd be burned to a cinder for doing so.

Strength for Carrying capacity? Handy Haversack. Cart. Etc. Heavy Armor? Enjoy getting taken out by the level one sorcerer with grease.
Strength for Damage? Yes, I admitt, grudgingly, that it is, the best stat for that. Not to mentioned that you have to get in close to actually do that damage.
Strength for Armor? You're kidding me. Armor check penalty will be the death of you... If you stick to core.

To be fair, I'd say that strength is no better or worse than any of the other stats.

As for half-orcs sucking, that would be because they're half breeds and were meant to be rare and unpopular, and therefore natural/player selection has to be against them. How to do that? Make them weak.

Roderick_BR
2007-01-19, 05:32 AM
Because in the end, D&D is about combat. All is reduced to your STR stat, being that the main charactes are usually combatant types. Sure, you can argue that wizards are more powerful, clerics rules, druids are overpowered... but in the end, the Fighter kicks everyone asses. I don't care for your maths, when in actual gameplay, the Fighter steals all the spotlights. Camon, who here actually played a high level wizard that did more than the fighter? I didn't yet.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-19, 05:36 AM
Because in the end, D&D is about combat. All is reduced to your STR stat, being that the main charactes are usually combatant types. Sure, you can argue that wizards are more powerful, clerics rules, druids are overpowered... but in the end, the Fighter kicks everyone asses. I don't care for your maths, when in actual gameplay, the Fighter steals all the spotlights. Camon, who here actually played a high level wizard that did more than the fighter? I didn't yet.

You... you're kidding me, right? The fighter doesn't steal the spotlight, he chases helplessly after it, because he can't even get to it to try to hit it. It can either disable him in a couple of rounds or just ignore him entirely.

Yuki Akuma
2007-01-19, 05:41 AM
Because in the end, D&D is about combat. All is reduced to your STR stat, being that the main charactes are usually combatant types. Sure, you can argue that wizards are more powerful, clerics rules, druids are overpowered... but in the end, the Fighter kicks everyone asses. I don't care for your maths, when in actual gameplay, the Fighter steals all the spotlights. Camon, who here actually played a high level wizard that did more than the fighter? I didn't yet.

Just because you're not good at playing wizards has nothing to do with whether fighters are better or not.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-19, 05:42 AM
Yeah. Last time I played a high-level wizard, first encounter of the game, I took out two enemies in two rounds. The other three people took out the third over those same two rounds; of them, the fighter contributed the least.

Charity
2007-01-19, 06:02 AM
Bear baiting again are they?
I thought that was outlawed these days.

Oh yeah content.

I'd say Int is the king of stats, with Con being a close second, Str is down there with Dex & Wis with poor old Cha bringing up the rear as ever.

Yeah and although half orcs are nerfed, I'd still rather be one than a cruddy half elf.

Shazzbaa
2007-01-19, 07:28 AM
Cha isn't the "most worthless stat." Many people just don't know how to use it right or simply choose to use something more combat oriented as opposed to roleplay oriented.

Charisma based abilities are not worthless. The problem is you can dump CHA and mechanically be a better bluff machine (for example), because a higher INT will help you more by giving you skill points to put in the social skills than a high CHA will with its piddly +3 bonus, in the end.

CHA is the most worthless stat because there is nothing that Charisma and Charisma alone is good for.

No one's knocking the charismatic skills. But the way WotC has it set up, pumping CHA is not the only or the best way to pump those skills. Thus, CHA is the least useful stat.

... is this thread turning into "wizards vs. fighters" and "why CHA fails?" ....Do all of our threads turn into that?

Anyhoo.

Matthew
2007-01-19, 07:42 AM
It's all Power Attack's fault. If it worked with Light Weapons Weapon Finesse would be great, but as it is Unarmed Strikes, Natural Weapons and Rapiers are the only options...

I would quite happily open up Weapon Finesse to all weapons, Power Attack to Light Weapons and let Strength be used as an alternative to Dexterity for Ranged Attacks...

NullAshton
2007-01-19, 08:00 AM
It's all Power Attack's fault. If it worked with Light Weapons Weapon Finesse would be great, but as it is Unarmed Strikes, Natural Weapons and Rapiers are the only options...

I would quite happily open up Weapon Finesse to all weapons, Power Attack to Light Weapons and let Strength be used as an alternative to Dexterity for Ranged Attacks...

And, incidentally, you can power attack just fine with a whip and spiked chain.

Matthew
2007-01-19, 09:22 AM
*Laughs*

Yep and back in 3.0 you could Power Attack with all weapons

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-01-19, 09:26 AM
A core-only fighter can easily get 2d6+40 at 20th. With five attacks per round--speed or a haste weapon... yeah.
Well, if we are going to count all five of your fighter's attacks (average 235 damage, assuming all hit), then it's only fair to remember that a 20-ft. radius delayed blast fireball has the potential to hit up to 44 Small or medium targets (3,080 average damage, assuming no successful saves or improved evasion), 17 Large creatures (average 1,190), 8 Huge creatures (average 560), and so on. And that's all assuming none of them fly, so all targets remain on the same plane. Otherwise you could hit more.

Of course, hitting that many targets requires the creatures all be packed far more tightly than should ever really happen. But then the fighter doesn't always have the capability to use all five of his attacks (and the attacks with the lower AB aren't likely to hit at all). I think it balances out on some level. The only thing the fighter has going is a better ability to concentrate all damage on a single important target.

Fhaolan
2007-01-19, 09:41 AM
In my opinion (which doesn't count for much, of course :smallsmile: ) your rolled/point bought stats depreciate in usefullness the character goes up levels. Mainly because magic to increase those stats become easier to come by.

In any case, I find INT and CON more 'useful' than STR because the bonuses from those stats keep accumulating as the character goes up levels. More HP and more skills. STR, WIS, and CHA's bonuses are static one-time bonuses.

Orzel
2007-01-19, 09:59 AM
STR is like CHA but more extreme. Very good if you use it, near useles if you don't.

Also STR is second after DEX for feat requirements (maybe 3rd with INT I didn't count). There are few common WIS, CON, and CHA based feats. Every melee warrior and their mama with a STR of 13 or more has "POWraawr" Attack. As you level STR and your spell casting ability are the only ones that still make a difference unless you are a super acher or love TWF.

Scipio
2007-01-19, 10:02 AM
The rule of thumb on stat increases is that a +2 on a physical stat requires two -2s on mental stats or an offsetting -2 on another physical stat. This means that strength is considered as good as Con and Dex, but it is better than Int, Wis and Cha. Dwarves are an exception to this rule, and that is part of the reason their are slightly overpowered.

Strength is important across the board for all melee builds. Even if you have Weapon Finesse, you still need the bonus to damage. High level casters will dominate high level melee builds (for the most part), but melee builds are much tougher at the lower levels. That is pretty much how it has been in all editions of D&D.

Golthur
2007-01-19, 10:46 AM
I'd probably rank abilities by "willingness to dump" to determine their "power". That is, I'd separate the abilities into three tiers - don't want to dump if it can be avoided, will dump if build demands it, will dump unless build requires.

My take on these would be:
Tier 1: CON, DEX (maybe INT here, it depends)
Tier 2: STR, INT, WIS
Tier 3: CHA

But, of course, YMMV. I guess I'm in the "Strength is overrated" camp.

And, as has already been said, in the world of +2/-2s, +2 to a mental stat, and -2 to a physical (or vice versa) is worth much more mechanically than +2/-2 to two physicals or two mentals.

Telonius
2007-01-19, 11:22 AM
Strength is important because of ...
Carrying capacity.
- Bag of Holding or a pack animal takes care of the need for that).

Climb, Jump, and Swim checks.
- Spider Climb and Fly spells take care of two; in seven years of D&D I have only ever had to make two Swim checks.

Melee damage.
- Only really important to primary melee combatants.

It's not all it's cracked up to be.

thor666
2007-01-19, 12:55 PM
Maybe we could do a breakdown analysis of each stat to each gaming component. :smallsmile:

STR: To Hit(melee), Weight Capacity, Damage Bonus
DEX: To Hit(range), AC, Initiative, Reflex Save
INT: Spellcasting(some spellcasters), Skill Points,
WIS: Spellcasting(some spellcasters), Will Save, AC(monks etc)
CON: HP & Survival, Fort Save
CHA: Spellcasting(some spellcasters)

All of them have relation to skill bonuses. From a purely min-max point of view, my personal opinion is that CHA is the worst stat (and subsequently tends to be a dump stat). I think it pales in comparision to INT when you consider that INT gives you valuable skill points to work with.

** The rest of the post, imho... **

At low levels, STR and CON still rule. Survival matters; and that often means removing enemies quickly in battle. AC tends to not be as effective as pure hitting and damage at higher levels, so it'll be rare for an encounter to drag on with lots of misses. (Even if you could drag a battle, it tends not to work well with other members of your party who just wants to end battle quickly, or do not have that incredible AC you have.)

IF only considering melee builds, STR build characters will be more effective in general than DEX builds (these tend to have annoying feat comboing/wasting progressions) or CON builds (HP isn't enough to fight someone indefinitely).

Exceptions come in the form of clerics and druids, whom as some note, can survive well without any other classes in a party in most campaigns (aka why people consider clerics overpowered). They also happen to scale better than fighting builds.

At medium to high levels, arcane classes tend to be able to protect themselves via a variety of spells and kill off melee builds with no SR no Save spells. IF you have to consider things like Celerity in, there's no way a melee character can win a well prepared arcane class character at high level.

In short, my opinion is that STR is not that good as WotC makes it to be. On the other hand, the "penalty" that WotC places isn't too stiff either. It does depend on the type of stat distribution you're using. I do see that certain classes can benefit from such a penalty though.

Matthew
2007-01-19, 12:57 PM
You forgot Strength Damage Bonus and Dexterity Reflex Save.

Roderick_BR
2007-01-19, 01:42 PM
You... you're kidding me, right? The fighter doesn't steal the spotlight, he chases helplessly after it, because he can't even get to it to try to hit it. It can either disable him in a couple of rounds or just ignore him entirely.
I kid you not! These two guys that used to play with me always did more mess with their fighters than any wizard or druid ever did in the games I played.
Of course, a wizard is potentially more powerful, but if you were using a handgun, would you attack head-on a guy with a rocket launcher? no.
Incidentally, one of these guys played a two-weapon fighting fighter (with only Improved TWF. Greater haven't been released yet) and he killed more enemies (and bosses) than any other character.


Just because you're not good at playing wizards has nothing to do with whether fighters are better or not.
Believe me, I'm even worse with fighters than I am with wizards.
As I said, I don't care much for theories. I saw the results, first hand. Fighters, when well played (not even min-maxized, just well plainly well played) can do a lot more than a wizard.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-19, 01:49 PM
I kid you not! These two guys that used to play with me always did more mess with their fighters than any wizard or druid ever did in the games I played.
Of course, a wizard is potentially more powerful, but if you were using a handgun, would you attack head-on a guy with a rocket launcher? no.
Incidentally, one of these guys played a two-weapon fighting fighter (with only Improved TWF. Greater haven't been released yet) and he killed more enemies (and bosses) than any other character.
That just means that your game had decent to good fighter players, really poor wizard players, and a DM who never threw any of the fighter's weaknesses at them.



Believe me, I'm even worse with fighters than I am with wizards.
As I said, I don't care much for theories. I saw the results, first hand. Fighters, when well played (not even min-maxized, just well plainly well played) can do a lot more than a wizard.
Than an ineffectively played wizard.

I'm guessing your wizards cast a lot of damage spells.

"I saw it in my game" does not make it true, it just means it happened. I could build a Complete Warrior Samurai that's more effective than the druid of someone who doesn't know how to play them remotely well. That doesn't make the Samurai better than the Druid.

I've seen completely different things in my games, were wizards are played effectively.
Against by-the-book CR 20 encounters, Fighters can barely even contribute at all, much less be the stars. Casters are owning things left and right.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-19, 01:49 PM
I kid you not! These two guys that used to play with me always did more mess with their fighters than any wizard or druid ever did in the games I played.
Of course, a wizard is potentially more powerful, but if you were using a handgun, would you attack head-on a guy with a rocket launcher? no.
Incidentally, one of these guys played a two-weapon fighting fighter (with only Improved TWF. Greater haven't been released yet) and he killed more enemies (and bosses) than any other character.
That just means that your game had decent to good fighter players, really poor wizard players, and a DM who never threw any of the fighter's weaknesses at them. "I saw it" =/= "it's always like that".



Believe me, I'm even worse with fighters than I am with wizards.
As I said, I don't care much for theories. I saw the results, first hand. Fighters, when well played (not even min-maxized, just well plainly well played) can do a lot more than a wizard.Than an ineffectively played wizard.

I'm guessing your wizards cast a lot of damage spells.

"I saw it in my game" does not make it true, it just means it happened. I could build a Complete Warrior Samurai that's more effective than the druid of someone who doesn't know how to play them remotely well. That doesn't make the Samurai better than the Druid.

I've seen completely different things in my games, were wizards are played effectively.
Against by-the-book CR 20 encounters, Fighters can barely even contribute at all, much less be the stars. Casters are owning things left and right.

Roderick_BR
2007-01-19, 02:00 PM
Well, I never saw differently, so I can't agree that wizards are better.
I make the same comment to you. Just because you saw good wizards defeat bad fighters, does not equal wizards being better.
I know that *I* could do a good wizard to defeat a fighter in my gaming group, though. But then again I know how to make a Fighter beat a Wizard into submission.

Yuki Akuma
2007-01-19, 02:01 PM
Anecdotal evidence is not good evidence. It's barely evidence.

However, evidence backed up by maths (which is what BWL has) is very good evidence.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-19, 02:03 PM
But then again I know how to make a Fighter beat a Wizard into submission.

No, you don't. Thinking that pretty much indicates you don't realize the entirety of what wizards can do. I see good wizards vastly outperform good fighters, with optimized builds. Of course fighters can outperform or take down blasters--blasters are weak. A fighter can't even *reach* a good wizard. He has no way of getting to him to hit him, and if he does manage to hit him, a contingency goes off.

Maelstrom
2007-01-19, 02:21 PM
... but if you were using a handgun, would you attack head-on a guy with a rocket launcher? no.

Oh heck yeah I would! Someone with a nimble, fairly accurate, multi shot weapon versus someone with a single use *ANTI-VEHICLE*, inaccurate, cumbersome weapon...seems to be a mismatch against the guy with a rocket launcher...:smallannoyed:

Roderick_BR
2007-01-19, 02:23 PM
I say the same. A good fighter does more than "shake a pointy sword" as Roy's father says. He is, first of all a strategist. He won't just attack a wizard face-to-face, knowing full well that wizards can best him in raw power.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-19, 02:29 PM
I say the same. A good fighter does more than "shake a pointy sword" as Roy's father says. He is, first of all a strategist. He won't just attack a wizard face-to-face, knowing full well that wizards can best him in raw power.

Yeah, the problem here is that the wizard can do anything. The fighter has a drastically limited set of options. He can move up to the wizard and attack, or use an item to teleport up to the wizard and not even manage to attack, basically (standard action to use--plus, the risk of an Anticipate Teleportation spell). I mean, seriously. What's he gonna do? Sneak into the wizard's Magnificent Mansion at night? How?

its_all_ogre
2007-01-19, 02:35 PM
i do not find STR to be a weak stat.
like all the rest it depends on how you are going to use it.
as for dwarfs being overpowered, if they had no stat adjustments they would still be the hardest phb race. hell even with a -2 con they would still be stronger than most (depending on what class you wanted to play etc.)
the only reason they do not get played much is lack of speed(and weak racial background beyond being an aggressive alcoholic scotsman)

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-19, 02:38 PM
More proof that one of the best characters you can be is an extremely clever and chaotic rogue. In a straight fight, perhaps you'll always lose to all the other classes. But why do that when you can slit their throats in their sleep?

krossbow
2007-01-19, 02:43 PM
Alarm, various wards, private mansion... it's hard getting to the person.


Unless you mean slitting your own parties throats, which is just, well, dumb.

Scipio
2007-01-19, 02:50 PM
Yeah, the problem here is that the wizard can do anything. The fighter has a drastically limited set of options. He can move up to the wizard and attack, or use an item to teleport up to the wizard and not even manage to attack, basically (standard action to use--plus, the risk of an Anticipate Teleportation spell). I mean, seriously. What's he gonna do? Sneak into the wizard's Magnificent Mansion at night? How?

I certainly agree that a mid to high level wizard will crush a mid to high level fighter. But they are both essential to a party composition. The wizard needs the meatshield to stand up there keeping the heat off of him.

Why do people constantly compare classes as if it was a PvP match? A balanced party needs people who fill all the required roles. Fighters are a lot of fun to play even if they are not the most powerful character at the high levels.

Telonius
2007-01-19, 02:54 PM
Well, that is one of the wizard's weaknesses - low skill points. Sense Motive is not one of their class skills. A character with a decent Bluff score and some method of preventing the wizard from using the "Detect Thoughts" spell (Ring of Mind Shielding, Belkar's Lead Sheet, etc.) could gain the trust of a wizard. Wouldn't be 100% certain, but it has a better chance of success than a frontal assault.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-01-19, 03:26 PM
The thing people forget with Strength (I think) is that +1 to hit in melee is far more useful than +1 in virtually any other situation you care to think of, simply because if you're in a fight lasting (say) five rounds making (say) three attacks per round, you're rolling fifteen attacks. That means that you get to use your +1 to hit fifteen times.

In comparison, in a social scene, you're likely to get to use one or two of your social skills once or twice.

Of course spells still own everybody's ass, but that's a different issue.

Indon
2007-01-19, 03:29 PM
Well, there are very many factors in this, certainly, but I'd like to note that Strength is used for feats of strength, things like forcing doors open or breaking out of an enclosure. Also, many objects can be broken (not sundered, broken) with a strength check.

Deepblue706
2007-01-19, 03:37 PM
This is a game for nerds, geeks, and dorks. Of course STR isn't good AT ALL. Only "smart people" get to be super-powerful or skilled.

Assasinater
2007-01-19, 03:48 PM
To-hit bonuses coming only from strength doesn't make sense. I think the to-hit bonus should be calculated as (str mod + dex mod)/2 , as opposed to the domination of strength. Dexterity includes hand-eye coordination, which not only shows itself in ranged combat, but is crucial in melee combat too. Maybe a greataxe or a hammer should be affected less by dexterity, but a longsword should at least get half of his attack bonus from dexterity.

I think the importance order in melee combat should be like this: skill(experience, or level) > dexterity > strength.

mikeejimbo
2007-01-19, 03:50 PM
To-hit bonuses coming only from strength doesn't make sense. I think the to-hit bonus should be calculated as (str mod + dex mod)/2

Although I agree in principle, I suspect it's the way it is for balance reasons.

Matthew
2007-01-19, 03:52 PM
Using Dexterity or Strength woud work fine, so long as penalties were not over ridden.

Yuki Akuma
2007-01-19, 03:52 PM
Well, that is one of the wizard's weaknesses - low skill points. Sense Motive is not one of their class skills. A character with a decent Bluff score and some method of preventing the wizard from using the "Detect Thoughts" spell (Ring of Mind Shielding, Belkar's Lead Sheet, etc.) could gain the trust of a wizard. Wouldn't be 100% certain, but it has a better chance of success than a frontal assault.

Social skills don't work on PCs the same way they work on NPCs.

Golthur
2007-01-19, 03:58 PM
Although I agree in principle, I suspect it's the way it is for balance reasons.
Yes, I agree in principle as well, but then Dexterity is way, way too powerful - Initiative, AC, attack rolls and Reflex saves.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-01-19, 04:03 PM
Yes, I agree in principle as well, but then Dexterity is way, way too powerful - Initiative, AC, attack rolls and Reflex saves.

Many of those are conditional though: AC benefits only apply up to the limit of your armour, and can only get it on attack rolls if you buy a feat (and use an inferior weapon).

Cybren
2007-01-19, 04:03 PM
That may seem like a lot, but really, it's 70 average damage.

A core-only fighter can easily get 2d6+40 at 20th. With five attacks per round--speed or a haste weapon... yeah.

Damage is a caster's worst option.
Depending on your interpretation they're the best at damage. THey have a number of spells that do all of it. (Slay living, for example)

Dan_Hemmens
2007-01-19, 04:06 PM
Depending on your interpretation they're the best at damage. THey have a number of spells that do all of it. (Slay living, for example)

I think that was the point: that's not damage, that's save-or-die.

Golthur
2007-01-19, 04:06 PM
Many of those are conditional though: AC benefits only apply up to the limit of your armour, and can only get it on attack rolls if you buy a feat (and use an inferior weapon).
I was speaking in the sense "if you made attack rolls depend on Dexterity", not as it currently stands. :smile:

Currently, Dex is powerful enough that you don't ever want to dump it (AC - up to a point, Initiative, Reflex saves, missile attacks). If you added melee attack rolls to it, it would be too much, I think - which is why it's not that way, even though it makes logical sense for it to be so.

Cybren
2007-01-19, 04:08 PM
I think that was the point: that's not damage, that's save-or-die.
no, no, I was making a jibe at people who use liberal interpretations of the rules when it's convenient for them. And also using italics.

Weirdlet
2007-01-19, 04:09 PM
I don't think I would say that Strength is overrated- it's good to have some brute physical force behind what you're doing, the same as it's good to have someone with a decent score in each stat just in case you get thrown a curveball that requires that particular ability- but the emphasis on it is a bit much, and leads to several troubles such as screwing up some of the racial balance and overemphasizing combat a bit (though it really comes down to personal choice on what style you're going to play- if you want to play something straight hack and slash, or straight roles and improv acting at table, you'll find a way to do it.).

In the group I usually play with, we use Dex to hit, Str for Damage, and I think it makes sense in that context- not everyone would go for it in other groups, I'm sure. Dexterity is how well you move, how fast and how precisely, while Strength is how much force is behind those moves (The catgirls are safe- this isn't realworld physics so much as interpretation of the terms)

Assasinater
2007-01-19, 04:20 PM
I agree. Some say dex will then become too powerful, but I think there is nothing wrong with that. It's like saying that high-level characters are too powerful. It's natural.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-01-19, 04:28 PM
I agree. Some say dex will then become too powerful, but I think there is nothing wrong with that. It's like saying that high-level characters are too powerful. It's natural.

The difference is that "low level character" versus "high level character" is not supposed to be a balanced decision. You don't decide, at character creation, what level you're going to be, and expect your level one to be as good as the other guy's level 20.

You can make an argument for pretty much *any* ability controlling your Attack Bonus. Strength for hitting hard and fast, dexterity for the hand-eye-co-ordination, intelligence for knowing when to make your attack and Wisdom for spotting openings in your enemy's guard.

Telonius
2007-01-19, 04:50 PM
Social skills don't work on PCs the same way they work on NPCs.
Wouldn't the Wizard be the NPC in that case, though? Even if it's the other way around, it could still work. If there's an NPC that makes a bluff, the PCs still have to make a Sense Motive check to tell if he's lying or not. Not sure what the rules are for pvp social checks, unless there's a specific ruleset I'd think it would be exactly the same as a check vs an NPC.

For example, in the campaign I'm in right now, one of the characters has a hidden agenda; he's a Psionic working for a spy organization. The players all know this, but none of our characters do. Every once in awhile, my Rogue gets a little suspicious about something he says or does, and rolls a Sense Motive check. Having +1 total sense motive, he always fails miserably; the character believes him and acts accordingly. Or are we doing this the wrong way?

Douglas
2007-01-19, 05:20 PM
The only skill that makes any distinction whatsoever between PCs and NPCs is diplomacy. If an NPC lies to a PC, the PC has to succeed on a sense motive check vs the NPCs bluff check to know that the NPC is lying in character. Note, however, that the opposed check does not necessarily override an opinion derived from other evidence. A failure means you can't tell whether he's lying, not you think he's telling the truth.

Assasinater
2007-01-19, 06:14 PM
The difference is that "low level character" versus "high level character" is not supposed to be a balanced decision. You don't decide, at character creation, what level you're going to be, and expect your level one to be as good as the other guy's level 20.

You can make an argument for pretty much *any* ability controlling your Attack Bonus. Strength for hitting hard and fast, dexterity for the hand-eye-co-ordination, intelligence for knowing when to make your attack and Wisdom for spotting openings in your enemy's guard.

Being the same level doesn't give them guaranteed equality either. They all are traits of your character. And even if they aren't the same, I have trouble seeing the problem there.

And yes, I can make the arguments that you give as examples, and they would all be right. I just mentioned the most blatant one.

Serakus_DeSardis
2007-01-19, 06:35 PM
I almost invariably build warriors and fighter to be "dex fighters". The fact of the matter is that a strong Dexterity stat benefits more aspects of combat and more aspects of the game in general. With weapon finesse it can add a signifigant amount to attack bonuses and at the same time add alot to AC. It has a Save attached to it as well as Initiative which may be the most important part of combat to begin with. What good is it to add a few points of damage to each hit if you cannot hit in the first place or if you get battered to a pulp before you get to attack.

I've been a pretty heavy MMO gamer for many years, and most of that has been played as rogues or rogue type characters. The rule of thumb with all melee classes is that it is far more important to increase your chance of hitting than it is to add damage to the hits. DnD/d20 being slightly different but fundamentally a similar set up to a MMO just on a more simple scale, follows the same principles. Continual steady damage is far more effective than the occasional big hit.

Therefore str = dump stat in my games

Rumda
2007-01-20, 09:04 AM
and with a swashbuckler str to damage becomes less important as you can add your int bonus as well as your str bonus

clarkvalentine
2007-01-20, 09:23 AM
You can make an argument for pretty much *any* ability controlling your Attack Bonus. Strength for hitting hard and fast, dexterity for the hand-eye-co-ordination, intelligence for knowing when to make your attack and Wisdom for spotting openings in your enemy's guard.

The d20 rules for A Game Of Thrones work exactly that way. By default, you don'[t add any ability bonus to your attack rolls. You take a feat to apply your choice of ability score (except Con) to your attacks. It's pretty neat.

Golthur
2007-01-20, 11:59 AM
The d20 rules for A Game Of Thrones work exactly that way. By default, you don'[t add any ability bonus to your attack rolls. You take a feat to apply your choice of ability score (except Con) to your attacks. It's pretty neat.
For some reason, I find this very interesting. I'll have to roll this one around in my melon for a bit.

clarkvalentine
2007-01-20, 07:18 PM
For some reason, I find this very interesting. I'll have to roll this one around in my melon for a bit.


It's great for the setting - you can build a viable warrior (not optimized, but one who can hold his own) with a lot wider leeway for concept than in D&D. This is great for the setting when you have knights who aren't built like brick walls as some of the best warriors around.

However, watch out porting this to D&D - Game of Thrones doesn't have spellcasters per se, and this could really unbalance (for instance) a D&D cleric.

Golthur
2007-01-20, 07:30 PM
It's great for the setting - you can build a viable warrior (not optimized, but one who can hold his own) with a lot wider leeway for concept than in D&D. This is great for the setting when you have knights who aren't built like brick walls as some of the best warriors around.

However, watch out porting this to D&D - Game of Thrones doesn't have spellcasters per se, and this could really unbalance (for instance) a D&D cleric.
This might just solve a problem I've been trying to figure out, but I won't have the spellcaster problem. My spellcasters have so much MAD it's ridiculous - so making their attack bonus based on Wisdom isn't going to soup them up too much.

Dausuul
2007-01-21, 02:24 AM
The way I see it, you can't really evaluate any stat in isolation. You have to compare each stat to the one you're balancing it against, and ask--how many builds will benefit from this set of modifiers, how many will suffer, how many will even out, and how big will the impact be?

Ultimately, the question is: Suppose you're playing a "typical" build that relies heavily on [stat that gets a bonus]. How would you feel about choosing [stat that gets a penalty] as a dump stat? If the answer is "Well, duh, that's the obvious dump stat," this set of mods is overpowered. If the answer is "Hmm, it wouldn't have been my first choice but I'm okay with it," this set of mods is just about right. If the answer is "Ow ow ow!" this set of mods is probably underpowered.

So, dwarf stats are overpowered because most builds that rely heavily on Con usually don't give a damn if they have a low Charisma. Halfling stats, on the other hand, are probably about right, because builds that rely heavily on Dex (rogues and ranged attackers) seldom need much Strength, but would usually prefer to dump Wisdom or Charisma if they had a choice. And elf stats are underpowered, because almost no Dex-based build is okay with taking Con as a dump stat.

Now, what about, say, Strength and Charisma? I'd say that +Str and -Cha is overpowered, because builds that rely heavily on Strength (tanks) seldom care if they dump Charisma. But +Cha and -Str is also overpowered, because builds that rely heavily on Cha (spontaneous casters) seldom care if they dump Strength!

Were I rebalancing D&D stats, it would probably look something like this:

Dwarves: +2 Con, -2 Dex. (Mildly advantageous trade-off in most cases, but not a "duh!" like their current stats.)
Elves: +2 Cha, -2 Con. (Spontaneous casters would find this a decent exchange, much like grey elf wizards. Of course, this means 90% of all elves are sorcerors or bards... which is okay by me.)
Gnomes: +2 Con, -2 Str. (Gnomes are okay as is. It's a nice trade for a caster, but not an overpowering one; Con isn't a caster's top pick stat-wise, though it's usually second or third. Although it's a little much when you add in the size bonuses as well.)
Halflings: +2 Dex, -2 Str. (Halflings are fine. Well, except for all the size bonuses, and the save bonuses, and the skill bonuses, but never mind.)
Half-Orcs: +2 Str, -2 Cha, -2 Int. (I actually think half-orc stat modifiers are okay--if you're playing a melee fighter, Cha and Int are both dump stats, so two "duh!" stats for one primary stat is an okay trade. The problem with half-orcs is they don't get anything to make up for losing the feats and skill points that humans get.)

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-01-21, 10:07 AM
Elves: +2 Cha, -2 Con. (Spontaneous casters would find this a decent exchange, much like grey elf wizards. Of course, this means 90% of all elves are sorcerors or bards... which is okay by me.)
Given that the current race set has no reinforcement of "ancient, powerful elven magic", I'd say giving them a bonus on a casting stat is a good thing.

Also, there was a thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26667) not that long ago* suggesting changing the elf's favored class to Bard. And I happen to find the logic of the argument therein acceptable.

So, yeah, I like that.

[hr]* Though it was long ago that any new posts likely qualify as thread necromancy. The link is provided solely for reference.

krossbow
2007-01-21, 03:16 PM
The way I see it, you can't really evaluate any stat in isolation. You have to compare each stat to the one you're balancing it against, and ask--how many builds will benefit from this set of modifiers, how many will suffer, how many will even out, and how big will the impact be?

Ultimately, the question is: Suppose you're playing a "typical" build that relies heavily on [stat that gets a bonus]. How would you feel about choosing [stat that gets a penalty] as a dump stat? If the answer is "Well, duh, that's the obvious dump stat," this set of mods is overpowered. If the answer is "Hmm, it wouldn't have been my first choice but I'm okay with it," this set of mods is just about right. If the answer is "Ow ow ow!" this set of mods is probably underpowered.

So, dwarf stats are overpowered because most builds that rely heavily on Con usually don't give a damn if they have a low Charisma. Halfling stats, on the other hand, are probably about right, because builds that rely heavily on Dex (rogues and ranged attackers) seldom need much Strength, but would usually prefer to dump Wisdom or Charisma if they had a choice. And elf stats are underpowered, because almost no Dex-based build is okay with taking Con as a dump stat.

Now, what about, say, Strength and Charisma? I'd say that +Str and -Cha is overpowered, because builds that rely heavily on Strength (tanks) seldom care if they dump Charisma. But +Cha and -Str is also overpowered, because builds that rely heavily on Cha (spontaneous casters) seldom care if they dump Strength!

Were I rebalancing D&D stats, it would probably look something like this:

Dwarves: +2 Con, -2 Dex. (Mildly advantageous trade-off in most cases, but not a "duh!" like their current stats.)
Elves: +2 Cha, -2 Con. (Spontaneous casters would find this a decent exchange, much like grey elf wizards. Of course, this means 90% of all elves are sorcerors or bards... which is okay by me.)
Gnomes: +2 Con, -2 Str. (Gnomes are okay as is. It's a nice trade for a caster, but not an overpowering one; Con isn't a caster's top pick stat-wise, though it's usually second or third. Although it's a little much when you add in the size bonuses as well.)
Halflings: +2 Dex, -2 Str. (Halflings are fine. Well, except for all the size bonuses, and the save bonuses, and the skill bonuses, but never mind.)
Half-Orcs: +2 Str, -2 Cha, -2 Int. (I actually think half-orc stat modifiers are okay--if you're playing a melee fighter, Cha and Int are both dump stats, so two "duh!" stats for one primary stat is an okay trade. The problem with half-orcs is they don't get anything to make up for losing the feats and skill points that humans get.)


The elf with the +2 cha -2 con is in fact the only elf sub-type not made in my opinion :p

They already have sun elves with a +2 int and a -2 con; I think that's better, as elves are more like wizards in their studying than they are sorcerors.

The Dwarves make COMPLETE sense, and it's why I use only gold-shield dwarves (Faerun campaign setting) in my campaigns. The -2 to dex that gold shield dwarves get makes a hell of a lot more sense.