PDA

View Full Version : 4e: Lack of Intelligence



BardicDuelist
2008-06-14, 07:27 PM
I am not saying that 4e is a bad system. It has some bad elements, to be sure, but it also has some very good things about it. This thread is not to debate that. What the title refers to is the fact that there is some serious imbalance in the use of ability scores. Let's look:

STR is important for: Clerics, Fighters, Paladins, Rangers, Rogues, and Warlords. (Six out of the eight classes! Only Wizards and Warlocks don't need it.)

CON is important for: Fighters and Warlocks (just two classes, but healing surges and hit points mean that it will never be a dump stat).

DEX is important for: Fighters, Rangers, Rogues, and Wizards (four out of eight classes, or half).

WIS is important for: Clerics, Paladins, Rangers, Fighters, and Wizards (five out of eight, again a large number).

CHA (the original dump stat) is important for: Clerics, Paladins, Rogues, Warlord, and Warlocks (while I like that it is no longer the classic dump stat for everyone, five out of eight seems a bit extreme).

And now the new dump stat, INT is important for only three classes: Warlock (although there is little benefit from your INT at early levels), Wizard (obviously), and Warlord (to whom STR is more important, and INT can be dumped in favor of CHA). Actually, both Warlocks and Warlords do pretty well without it and the CharOp boards seem to feel that WIS is now almost more important to Wizards than INT, except for INT being needed to hit.

This is sad. First off, all of the classes that DEX is imporant for, except Wizards (who, admittedly, don't really need DEX that much, but with a high DEX can pump WIS more and lower INT if they wanted to) can dump INT with impunity. At least in 3e, INT was used for skill points, and so if you wanted to use skills you had to have at least a decent INT. Now, 5/8ths of the classes can dump it and have almost no ill effects. Out of the three remaining, two can do just fine with a 10 INT. So, out of eight classes, only one person needs to be smart.

Now, what bothers me most about this is how it effects rogues. First of all, in 3e (I won't speak of 1e or 2e because I have very limited experience with those) INT was almost always the second ability score picked for rogues (after DEX), except in a few specialized builds. Now, the trope of the rogue who lives by his wits is no longer applicable in D&D. Instead, we have STR being a primary stat for the class, despite the fact that most of its abilities seem to have been designed to subvert the reliance of melee characters on STR. I see nothing wrong with strong rogues. Let them have a choice to add STR to damage if they want. My problem is with the smart rogue being useless. Even the skills that relied on INT (like search) now rely on a different stat (consequently making the rogue less adept at finding traps than a ranger or even paladin!).

Now, I hate it when people complain without proposing a solution (when the solution is not obvious or implied). I have one. It focuses on rogues, but in doing so creates a greater balance between ability scores in the core classes. I propose to create a new Rogue Tactics choice: the Cunning Knave. I will detail this in homebrew (where it belongs) and link to here. In short, it will give a bonus to Perception checks when searching for traps as well as influence certain powers. Naturally, this will rely on INT, thus bringing the number of classes that INT is useful to in core up to 4/8 (half is acceptable), without removing any options from the game.

An before it is said, I know that other classes will come out and probably rely on INT. That's fine with me, but I am also sure that many more of them will rely on STR (Barbarian at least) and WIS (Druid almost certainly, as well as a decent chance for Barbarian).

Thanks for reading, and I would like to know how others feel about this.

Edit:Link to Homebrew (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4462345#post4462345)

Neftren
2008-06-14, 07:39 PM
I totally agree with you about the Intelligence thing. I just made my first character today (for 4e that is) and found out that Intelligence is... utterly worthless now. It's no longer used to determine anything for the Rogue, and the massive barrage of skillpoints seems to have been removed.

I think if they kept the skill point system, Int would have been much more important.

Wren
2008-06-14, 07:42 PM
I feel more or less the same about the stat. also don't forget that in 3.x you got bonus languages as well with int.

sure it can add to your ac but thats only for people wearing light armor. most people in light armor either A) Have int as a main stat already (and its a nice bonus in this case) or B) Have reasons to have dex as a higher stat than int anyways.

BardicDuelist
2008-06-14, 07:53 PM
I feel more or less the same about the stat. also don't forget that in 3.x you got bonus languages as well with int.

sure it can add to your ac but thats only for people wearing light armor. most people in light armor either A) Have int as a main stat already (and its a nice bonus in this case) or B) Have reasons to have dex as a higher stat than int anyways.

Ah yes, the languages. Luckily, that is somthing that can be easily changed with little effect on game play: just make it so that you gain bonus languages equal to your INT bonus. Unfortunately, the skills are not. I suppose even bonus trained skills equal to 1/2 INT bonus would be too much (as it now costs a feat to learn a skill). That is too bad.

Pie Guy
2008-06-14, 07:54 PM
How about if we add a number of skills to your class skill list (if you don't already do this) equal to your int modifier. In fact, It means that anyone who wants to be a (moderate) skill monkey can, without having to change classes or multiclass as opposed to 3.5.

BardicDuelist
2008-06-14, 08:04 PM
How about if we add a number of skills to your class skill list (if you don't already do this) equal to your int modifier. In fact, It means that anyone who wants to be a (moderate) skill monkey can, without having to change classes or multiclass as opposed to 3.5.

Again though, this cheapens the Skill Training feat. I think 1/2 INT is better, as a) there are a very limited number of skills, and b) it represents a sizeable investment of ability score points, an investment which can be a "cost" high enough to justify cheapening of the feat.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-14, 08:51 PM
So, important note:

INT can sub for DEX for your Reflex Class and your Armor Class (if you are in light armor). It is also necessary for Arcana (which does Detect Magic now!), History, and Religion (identifying undead!).

The main difference is that in 3e, INT became too important. It was the cornerstone of anyone who wanted to have skills, and it became really, really important for rogues. This was problematic because a rogue that "lives by his wits" is living by his WIS, not his INT. Combined with the INT requirement for Expertise (and thus, all those feat chains) it was very hard to decide to have an INT of less than 12.

So now, INT isn't necessary. This is good. And it is able to swap out for DEX for people who have light armor but aren't necessarily ninjas (D&D's nerd, the wizard, was almost always the second-most dexterous class out there :smalltongue:). Yes, Dex is still helpful for Wizards with Wand Mastery, but both Wizards and Warlocks, and Fighters and Paladins, can all skip Dex now. Strength is merely important for classes with melee powers (the much-mocked Lazor Cleric, for example, can just WIS people to death).

Which brings me to the final point: every class has at least two build options which focus on very different ability sets. Lazor Clerics and Brawling Clerics, for instance, have opposite views on Strength. Paladins can basically choose to be CHA or STR fighters too. That sort of flexibility just wasn't there in 3e, and it resulted in some universal dump stats.

BardicDuelist
2008-06-14, 09:33 PM
So, important note:

INT can sub for DEX for your Reflex Class and your Armor Class (if you are in light armor). It is also necessary for Arcana (which does Detect Magic now!), History, and Religion (identifying undead!).

True, but the classes that have INT are likely to have a decent DEX too. History is an RP skill (for the most part), as well as Religion (no high bonus is really necessary, so simple training is usually enough even with rituals), and Arcana is used (without multiclassing) by the two classes that INT actually does somthing for.


The main difference is that in 3e, INT became too important. It was the cornerstone of anyone who wanted to have skills, and it became really, really important for rogues. This was problematic because a rogue that "lives by his wits" is living by his WIS, not his INT. Combined with the INT requirement for Expertise (and thus, all those feat chains) it was very hard to decide to have an INT of less than 12.

I agree that 3e needed easier access to skills, now INT does little outside of modify a couple skills and affects the smallest number of classes.

Expertise and the related feats seemed to be for the express purpose of eliminating the "dumb fighter," which I felt was a good thing. This seems to be what they are trying by tying WIS to fighters now.

I disagree with your comment about a rogue living by his wits being a WIS thing. In my mind, being clever (somthing a rogue is) is INT. Either way, rogues gain only minor benefit (one skill) from high WIS either. It doesn't directly affect any class features.


So now, INT isn't necessary. This is good. And it is able to swap out for DEX for people who have light armor but aren't necessarily ninjas (D&D's nerd, the wizard, was almost always the second-most dexterous class out there :smalltongue:). Yes, Dex is still helpful for Wizards with Wand Mastery, but both Wizards and Warlocks, and Fighters and Paladins, can all skip Dex now. Strength is merely important for classes with melee powers (the much-mocked Lazor Cleric, for example, can just WIS people to death).

INT not being necessary is good. INT being useless is not. I'm fine with there being substitutes so that all stats have some form of substitue when it comes to defenses (so as to decrease MAD), although Fighters and Paladins are better off not skipping DEX for INT as they recieve more benefit from the former. That's part of my problem. Oh, and most classes have melee powers.


Which brings me to the final point: every class has at least two build options which focus on very different ability sets. Lazor Clerics and Brawling Clerics, for instance, have opposite views on Strength. Paladins can basically choose to be CHA or STR fighters too. That sort of flexibility just wasn't there in 3e, and it resulted in some universal dump stats.

I agree, and this is what I like about 4e. Unfortunately, the stat options are rather similar with little variety (STR or CHA Paladin or Rogue) and thus allow fewer character options as far as stats are concerned by increasing focus on specific ability scores. Sadly, INT was the neglected stat (as has been stated, CON is nevering going to be the dump, but INT almost always is if you're not one of the three Ws and even then can be neglected a bit).

Learnedguy
2008-06-15, 12:23 AM
Well, the new PH had mostly martial classes who aren't really expected to use their brains anyway, it's granted that there'd seem like a less need of intelligence (also, you can dump Cha instead of Int with a warlord as well I believe):smallwink:

But once the supplements starts pouring out I think the classes who rely on intelligence will start to increase.

BardicDuelist
2008-06-15, 12:34 AM
I added a link to my homebrew fix in the OP.

kieza
2008-06-15, 12:34 AM
Since it seems like people are okay with having alternatives to Int, but don't want it to be a dump stat, we need to make an incentive for people to not just put their lowest stat in it by default. How about this:

If you do not have a +0 or higher Int modifier, you have one (2? 50%?) less trained skills than is normal for your class. Thus, you suffer from having low Int, but it isn't crippling if you actually want to RP a low-Int character.

BardicDuelist
2008-06-15, 01:09 AM
Since it seems like people are okay with having alternatives to Int, but don't want it to be a dump stat, we need to make an incentive for people to not just put their lowest stat in it by default. How about this:

If you do not have a +0 or higher Int modifier, you have one (2? 50%?) less trained skills than is normal for your class. Thus, you suffer from having low Int, but it isn't crippling if you actually want to RP a low-Int character.

However, this is very limiting to the classes, who have a set number of skills drawn from a limited list (and I don't mean the class lists). I don't see the number of skills or even the skill system as a problem, but I do see it as difficult to alter without limiting the classs. I think adding good INT options helps. INT being a dump stat isn't even that bad to me, I just wish it wasn't a BAD idea to put a good stat into it. Especially for classes that low INT makes it difficult to RP.

I know mechanics and RP aren't the same thing, but I don't like gimping myself so that I can have the character I want. Being a rogue and not being able to find traps because you'd rather be smart than wise, or giving up valuable combat options because you're too smart (and not charisimatic or strong enough) to make use of good tactics and skill is pretty lame.

Gralamin
2008-06-15, 01:59 AM
Why do the Character Optimization boards favor CHA Warlords? From an analysis part of view, even from the lower levels INT is better because of the huge bonuses it can grant to every other party member.
Also, Why would you go Dex and Wis based Wizard? Most of their better abilities are intelligence based. (At least that I've looked at, maybe I'm not seeing something)

As for INT Being useless? I'm not so sure. I honestly haven't seen any claims that match those that you made.

Frost
2008-06-15, 08:48 AM
Yes, I'm confused at why you'd want a Dex higher then 8 as a Wizard.

Use your Int for AC and Reflex, use Int for all powers, Con for Fort defense/HP/Surges, Wis for will defense and all the little perks like Orb Mastery, Cloud of daggers damage, ect. Cha 13 because the pre-reqs for stats are retarded.

I don't see any reason to have Dex at all?

Tengu
2008-06-15, 09:13 AM
I don't see any reason to have Dex at all?

Initiative. Although characters that don't care about initiative can safely dump dex and invest in int instead - a decent solution if you want to be better at the skills Oracle_Hunter mentioned.

I personally hope they will release some martial feats that require int. Maybe Combat Expertise?

BardicDuelist
2008-06-15, 10:05 AM
Why do the Character Optimization boards favor CHA Warlords? From an analysis part of view, even from the lower levels INT is better because of the huge bonuses it can grant to every other party member.
Also, Why would you go Dex and Wis based Wizard? Most of their better abilities are intelligence based. (At least that I've looked at, maybe I'm not seeing something)

As for INT Being useless? I'm not so sure. I honestly haven't seen any claims that match those that you made.

Well for the CHA Warlord, I have no clue. I was just using it as an example that for the classes for which INT is a primary stat, INT can be reasonably dumped.

For Wizards, I was merely stating that a DEX and WIS based Wizard could be done rather easily. The most effective (from what I can tell) is to have WIS be the highest stat for all of the control effects that it aids, then have INT be second highest so as to have a high enough "to-hit." But if you wanted to, a wand impliment and a high DEX instead of INT only costs you one thing: the use of an orb. As a controller, can be important.

Of course, those are more extreme examples that I was using to make a point. What really bothered me (as I thought I made clear in my OP) was that 5/8 classes can safely dump INT, one of those being the Rogue (who was traditionally, or at least in 3e, smart). Actually, as a Rogue, it is a bad idea to invest in INT because your other "dump" would normally be WIS, but if you dump it you'll never find a trap.

Making INT the logical dump for the rogue (while I don't think it should be a necessary stat, I think it should have some use, just like STR and CHA have possible uses if you want to be strong or charisimatic) is what my real problem is with. Yes this can be house ruled, but now I have to go to every DM and ask "Will you let me use this house rule?" so that I can play the character I want (Bard was allready cut, so out of my favored classes, we just have the Rogue).

TwystidMynd
2008-06-15, 10:13 AM
One thing I just came up with off the top of my head is perhaps to allow Int affect the bonus you get from training a skill?

Like, if you have an 18 int, you get 5+[int] from training a skill, instead of just the +5, so that every class benefits from having a higher than average intelligence. It also reflects how well you learn something; smarter people learn things better than otherwise, and she 5+[int] reflects that.
With this, every class has a use for a high intelligence, but skill-focused people benefit from it even more.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-15, 11:33 AM
Making INT the logical dump for the rogue (while I don't think it should be a necessary stat, I think it should have some use, just like STR and CHA have possible uses if you want to be strong or charisimatic) is what my real problem is with. Yes this can be house ruled, but now I have to go to every DM and ask "Will you let me use this house rule?" so that I can play the character I want (Bard was allready cut, so out of my favored classes, we just have the Rogue).

Ah. Well, as a 2e player, let me say that the INT rogue was an artifact of 3e. Previously, they were an extremely DEX class - since there were no social skills, nobody had CHA :smallwink:

So, why do I think WIS makes more sense? Read the stat descriptions (PHB 17):
Intelligence (Int) describes how well your character learns and reasons.

Wisdom (Wis) measures your common sense, perception, self-discipline, and empathy. You use your Wisdom score to notice details, sense danger, and get a read on other people.

When I think of someone with "street smarts" I think "common sense, perception ... [the ability] to notice details, sense danger, and get a read on other people." Now, you may not agree with WotC's definitions of WIS and INT, but we are working within WotC's system, so we go with what we have.

If you want a "tricky guy" who uses his INT, the INT Warlord works really, really well. Go Eladrin and take Eladrin Soldier to get +2 to hit for Longsword, and then use Weapon Focus for an extra +1 with Longsword. That's an equivalent of 16 STR, so if you just want to be able to hit with the INT Warlord powers but don't want a high STR guy, then there you go.

Now, I guess it depends on what you really want an "INT rogue" to do. But I'd encourage you to take another look at the 4e classes, because I'm sure there's something in there that fits what you're looking for, even if it's called something else. Heck, post up here what kind of character you want to make, and I'm sure I can make a recommendation.

Mjoellnir
2008-06-15, 12:43 PM
Thank god, I'm not the only one who thinks that Int is too bad the way it is. In Star Wars Saga Edition (D&D 4.0 Beta) the skill system is like in 4E, exceptions: You get + Int-Mod trained skills from your class list, and + Int-Mod Bonus Languages, and Skill Focus gives a +5 bonus instead of +3. I think of still giving bonus skills and languages from Int, but free to choose like eladrin education, because the class skill lists of some classes are too short if you have a high intelligence.:smallbiggrin:

Saph
2008-06-15, 01:09 PM
I can't read this thread without thinking of Team America: World Police. "We've lost Intelligence! I repeat, we have no Intelligence!" :smallbiggrin:

Anyway, yeah. Int is now a completely dumpable stat for nearly all classes, so get ready for the wave of really dumb heroes. :P

- Saph

Gralamin
2008-06-15, 01:20 PM
Well for the CHA Warlord, I have no clue. I was just using it as an example that for the classes for which INT is a primary stat, INT can be reasonably dumped.

Ah I see. I was confused because I beleive they are about equal, or INT warlords have a slight advantage. Do note however that the warlord can be a bit low on Strength and have a greater Intelligence and still succeed. I'm playing a Warlord with 14 Strength and 18 intelligence (level 3 now), and he is one of the strongest party members in terms of what he contributes. Commander's Strike, Warlord's Favor, and Lead the Attack all contribute to this, giving everyone else a bonus at the sacrifice of himself. (I know personal stories aren't very good evidence, but what can I say?)


For Wizards, I was merely stating that a DEX and WIS based Wizard could be done rather easily. The most effective (from what I can tell) is to have WIS be the highest stat for all of the control effects that it aids, then have INT be second highest so as to have a high enough "to-hit." But if you wanted to, a wand impliment and a high DEX instead of INT only costs you one thing: the use of an orb. As a controller, can be important.
The most effective is actually having a high Intelligence. Because one of the most effective things a Wizard can do is consistently hit large numbers of creatures with its powers. Unless your considering investing in powers that do damage on a miss, I would recommend having intelligence as the highest stat.


Of course, those are more extreme examples that I was using to make a point. What really bothered me (as I thought I made clear in my OP) was that 5/8 classes can safely dump INT, one of those being the Rogue (who was traditionally, or at least in 3e, smart). Actually, as a Rogue, it is a bad idea to invest in INT because your other "dump" would normally be WIS, but if you dump it you'll never find a trap.
3e smart and 4e smart have the same definition. A rogue didn't need to be all that smart in 3e, just enough to cover the basic skills. People just came up with the idea they should cover nearly all their skills. As a striker, a rogue doesn't really need constitution, and can also feel free to dump Wisdom. Why? Because finding traps is no longer the rogues job. There is literally nothing stopping you from increasing your intelligence, it just isn't the best move.


Making INT the logical dump for the rogue (while I don't think it should be a necessary stat, I think it should have some use, just like STR and CHA have possible uses if you want to be strong or charisimatic) is what my real problem is with. Yes this can be house ruled, but now I have to go to every DM and ask "Will you let me use this house rule?" so that I can play the character I want (Bard was allready cut, so out of my favored classes, we just have the Rogue).

Your problem is your comparing 3E and 4E, and making assumptions based on the former on the latter. This is not a good way of working with a system.
Is there really a problem that only 3 out of 8 classes need intelligence? No. In 3E The number of classes that needed charisma is greater then the number of classes that need any other stats. Yet it was still a dump stat. The number of classes that need intelligence in 4E is a small list, but at least 2 of them need it to do their jobs properly. (I haven't read over warlock yet)

Tengu
2008-06-15, 01:42 PM
If you want a "tricky guy" who uses his INT, the INT Warlord works really, really well. Go Eladrin and take Eladrin Soldier to get +2 to hit for Longsword, and then use Weapon Focus for an extra +1 with Longsword. That's an equivalent of 16 STR, so if you just want to be able to hit with the INT Warlord powers but don't want a high STR guy, then there you go.


Both of these feats improve your damage, not attack.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-15, 02:40 PM
Both of these feats improve your damage, not attack.

:smallfrown: That's what I get for taking INT as a dump stat.

marjan
2008-06-15, 03:19 PM
:smallfrown: That's what I get for taking INT as a dump stat.

Good thing you are 4e character. If you were 3e, nobody would like you, so: "Always look on the bright side of life". :smallbiggrin:

As for int being a dump stat: Well it's true that this is one of least important stats in 4e, but is still nowhere near useless as was generally the case with cha in 3e. In 3e, unless you had a class that depended on cha, you could reasonably dump as the only thing it affected were a few skills. In 4e int is still better as even if your class is not dependent on it, you can still use it for AC and reflex defense. So I don't think it's anywhere near cha of 3e.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-06-15, 04:10 PM
Just a minor point, but technically shouldn't the rogue who "lives on his wits" have high Wisdom, rather than high Intelligence. Intelligence, after all, is supposed to be the "book learnin'" Ability.

wodan46
2008-06-15, 04:41 PM
I agree that Int has been disregarded. Currently, with regards to class powers, it gives the following:
Wizards: Attack and Damage, bonus effects are often Wis based
Warlocks: Pact bonus effects for their encounter powers
Warlord: Tactical specialty bonus effects for encounter powers, Commander's Strike

Furthermore, multiclassing between the 3 sucks, as multiclassing to a Warlord or Warlock will not give you the class features that grant bonuses based on Int, and multiclassing to Wizard won't get you the all important spellbook.

Corven
2008-06-15, 04:53 PM
Hello, Im pretty new (and spanish) and have an idea for a house-rule for INT, this is the general idea, and you can help me make it to the final balanced rule

In previous edition INT granted extra spells to magic users, but I notice that now is like "everyone is some-kind of magic user" as every class has his "powers-spells-actions" and have the Atwill-Encounter-Daily-Utility like older spells levels so... What if we give bonus powers for an high int chars? as they are smarter they know more than others, maybe the INT/2 bonus could be a good start, or maybe each +1 bonus follow this receipt
(AW/Enc/Day/Ut)
+1 -> +1/0/0/0
+2 -> +1/+1/0/0
+3 -> +1/+1/+1/0
+4 -> +1/+1/+1/+1 ... and so on

Fight!

marjan
2008-06-15, 05:08 PM
Hello, Im pretty new (and spanish) and have an idea for a house-rule for INT, this is the general idea, and you can help me make it to the final balanced rule

In previous edition INT granted extra spells to magic users, but I notice that now is like "everyone is some-kind of magic user" as every class has his "powers-spells-actions" and have the Atwill-Encounter-Daily-Utility like older spells levels so... What if we give bonus powers for an high int chars? as they are smarter they know more than others, maybe the INT/2 bonus could be a good start, or maybe each +1 bonus follow this receipt
(AW/Enc/Day/Ut)
+1 -> +1/0/0/0
+2 -> +1/+1/0/0
+3 -> +1/+1/+1/0
+4 -> +1/+1/+1/+1 ... and so on

Fight!

I don't think that this is good idea. In case of classes that don't rely on int you are either going to introduce MAD or have them pump their int at the expense of their primary and secondary stat, so they don't get much from it. It's better to have more reliable powers than to have bunch of powers that do nothing. On the other hand, if a class relies on int you just gave it a free boost, which will, in case that classes are balanced as they are, unbalance them. So I really don't see anything good coming from this.

EvilRoeSlade
2008-06-15, 05:12 PM
The whole system is designed to lower reliance on any specific stat.

You used to need Strength if you wanted to deal damage in either melee or Ranged combat, now you don't.
You used to need Dexterity to get a decent armor class or to hit with a thrown weapon, and now you don't.
You used to need Constitution if you didn't want to take a hit point penalty at every character level, and now you don't.
You used to need Intelligence if you wanted to be good at more than one or two limited-scope skills and now you don't.
No one needed charisma, and they still don't. But now it's gotten to be a good idea to have it anyway, in some instances. :D

I'd say the attribute system is good all around. Nobody has more than three primary attributes anyway. If you want an above average intelligence score, you aren't going to suffer too bad for it.

wodan46
2008-06-15, 06:26 PM
4 classes can have Str as their primary and 3 can have Cha. Int has... 1.

2 possibilities for corrections.

First, make is so that the Int bonus is what allows you to choose from utilities and dailies, while the spellbook would be for rituals, which is handy enough as it is (pay component price only, which is a fraction of listed price). The higher the modifier, the more utility and daily tiers receive multiple choices. Hence, you get flexibility for being high Int, so low Int means less choices, even though you have the same amount of power.

+1: 1 Utility
+2: 2 Utility, 1 Daily
+3: 3 Utility, 1 Daily
+4: 4 Utility, 2 Daily, 1 Encounter*
+5: 5 Utility, 2 Daily, 1 Encounter
+6: 6 Utility, 3 Daily, 1 Encounter
(Note: You receive the extra slots to the lowest tiers first).
*This ensures that a high Int is good for low level Wizards.

Second, you could instead grant a bonus to ALL skill checks equal to half your Int modifier. For physical things like Athletics, this would represent coming up with well planned training regimens or learning various shortcuts and tricks. This would give the rogue a craving for intelligence again, while Warlords, Warlocks, and Wizards would receive minor jack of all trade abilities.

Kabump
2008-06-15, 07:11 PM
Two things about this post. First, I have to agree with the "living by his wits" rogue is using wisdom, not int. Its the classic distinction between "book smarts" (int) and "street smarts" (wis), as well as the "stupid genius" (High int, low wis; can calculate large thermodynamic equations in his head but cant remember where he left his keys). At least that is how Ive always viewed it.

Secondly, this:


As for int being a dump stat: Well it's true that this is one of least important stats in 4e, but is still nowhere near useless as was generally the case with cha in 3e.

Marjan makes an excellent point. I fail to see how cha being a dump stat for nearly every class in 3e is ok, but int being a dump stat in 4e is bad.

Wren
2008-06-15, 07:35 PM
I think you mean "street smarts" (cha)

marjan
2008-06-15, 07:42 PM
I fail to see how cha being a dump stat for nearly every class in 3e is ok, but int being a dump stat in 4e is bad.

And I fail to see how you got that impression from reading my post.

Kabump
2008-06-15, 07:46 PM
And I fail to see how you got that impression from reading my post.

I didnt, perhaps you misinterpreted my internet speak :) this: <insert something> means you just made a really good point, and Im quoting you as such, My comment was directed at the OP, I 100% agree with you and Im sorry I was not more clear.

marjan
2008-06-15, 07:56 PM
I didnt, perhaps you misinterpreted my internet speak :) this: <insert something> means you just made a really good point, and Im quoting you as such, My comment was directed at the OP, I 100% agree with you and Im sorry I was not more clear.

In that case my apologies. Excuse: my brain functions are at the minimum ATM (3 AM here). :smallredface:

BardicDuelist
2008-06-15, 08:11 PM
One, I felt that CHA being a dump stat was bad. Since 4e is supposed to be an improvement, I feel that it can be said that somthing like this existing is a failing. I know that many will disagree, but that is my opinion.

With the living by his wits thing, I can see how wisdom could be viewed this way. Now though, Streetwise is your streetsmarts, or at least supposed to be. Still to me, one cannot be clever without intelligence (INT being the ability to learn, not how much is learned, I felt that somone can be clever wihtout being booksmart and that is what somone with a high INT but no knowledge skills is). I want the clever, swashbuckelery rogue (which many of the rogue powers lend themselves to).

And as far as finging traps not being the rogue's job anymore: I absolutely HATE this. I'm not saying that he should be the only one to find traps, but it is his ICONIC role. Taking that away means that the game loses much.

Comparing different editions of the same system should be done. If one is to be an improvement (mechanically), that is fine. But because they are the same game, there should be similarities enough in themes and iconic elements to make them so. Again, I'm not debating 4e, but merely expressing my concern and dislike of a specific part.

Oracle Hunter: Okay then, how can I create a smart fencer in 4e? Warlocks being the "tricky guys" is fine, but they still use magic and have thematic elements which vary greatly from anything that I would be wanting to do with a rogue.

Gralamin
2008-06-15, 08:53 PM
One, I felt that CHA being a dump stat was bad. Since 4e is supposed to be an improvement, I feel that it can be said that somthing like this existing is a failing. I know that many will disagree, but that is my opinion.

It is not really a dump stat in my opinion, no more then Charisma is this edition.


With the living by his wits thing, I can see how wisdom could be viewed this way. Now though, Streetwise is your streetsmarts, or at least supposed to be. Still to me, one cannot be clever without intelligence (INT being the ability to learn, not how much is learned, I felt that somone can be clever wihtout being booksmart and that is what somone with a high INT but no knowledge skills is). I want the clever, swashbuckelery rogue (which many of the rogue powers lend themselves to).

A mistake in your mentality should not be used as an argument. One can be clever without being intelligent, just as easily as one can be strong but be a coward.


And as far as finging traps not being the rogue's job anymore: I absolutely HATE this. I'm not saying that he should be the only one to find traps, but it is his ICONIC role. Taking that away means that the game loses much.

No it is not. Rogue's Iconic role is being that sneaky ******* who just stabbed you in your back. They were given the ability to find trap because it fit them the best of the Iconic roles.


Comparing different editions of the same system should be done. If one is to be an improvement (mechanically), that is fine. But because they are the same game, there should be similarities enough in themes and iconic elements to make them so. Again, I'm not debating 4e, but merely expressing my concern and dislike of a specific part.

Comparing them should be done on a mechanical standpoint after looking at the merits and cons of both systems separately. It is the same game, as it is still a heroic fantasy game (the very theme of the game is the same), and Iconic elements are the same. 3E put in a lot of new elements, such as Rogue's actually needing intelligence.

namo
2008-06-15, 09:40 PM
I miss Int too. But I think I'll just RP my characters as smart even when they have Int 11 because their class requires them to use the points elsewhere.

As for the rogue archetype, the Int rogue is the cunning one: the thief who lays careful plan to steal the Magical Diamond of Plot Progression. I am thinking of Vlad Taltos (he uses magic, but as a tool) or Locke Lamora to take examples from fantasy.
Still, there's certainly a place for the Wis rogue.

Crow
2008-06-15, 10:02 PM
There is no such thing as a "Lives by his wits" rogue in 4th edition. Only a "Lives by his dexterity score" rogue, because attack bonus is king in 4e.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-15, 10:33 PM
Oracle Hunter: Okay then, how can I create a smart fencer in 4e? Warlocks being the "tricky guys" is fine, but they still use magic and have thematic elements which vary greatly from anything that I would be wanting to do with a rogue.

CHA Rogues (Artful Dodgers) - like actual fencers, they use their ability to bluff their opponents and then capitalize on their mistakes. Reasoning ability has little advantage in an actual match (which WIS is helpful for noticing what your opponent is doing - Insight, I guess).

Plus, for an actual fencer, DEX is one of the most important abilities. All the brains in the world isn't going to amount to squat if you can't actually move quickly and deftly enough to carry out your plans.

I say all that as an actual fencer, and one who falls more generally in the "perceptive, but not quick" category :smalltongue:

But what do you mean by "smart fencer?" The Duelist PrC in 3e was an abomination, and certainly didn't act like a fencer. If you mean "a smart guy who also fences" then you'll want to be a wizard or warlock that cross-classes with Rogue or Fighter and picks up Rapier. Warlord is a bad idea, since he's not much of a duelist, to be honest.

Re: other stuff
It mostly sounds like you don't want the rogue to change. You liked a skill monkey who had high intelligence and was the only guy who could find and disable traps. If so, then you're right that you can't play exactly that in 4e - the game is different from 3e. You can still play a skill monkey (be a human and also take "Jack of All Trades") and keep high intelligence for bonuses with those particular skills (or to cross-class with an Int class - maybe Warlord?).

Can't do anything about the traps thing, except say that it's unlikely anyone else would bother to train Thievery.

BardicDuelist
2008-06-15, 11:27 PM
CHA Rogues (Artful Dodgers) - like actual fencers, they use their ability to bluff their opponents and then capitalize on their mistakes. Reasoning ability has little advantage in an actual match (which WIS is helpful for noticing what your opponent is doing - Insight, I guess).

Plus, for an actual fencer, DEX is one of the most important abilities. All the brains in the world isn't going to amount to squat if you can't actually move quickly and deftly enough to carry out your plans.

I say all that as an actual fencer, and one who falls more generally in the "perceptive, but not quick" category :smalltongue:

But what do you mean by "smart fencer?" The Duelist PrC in 3e was an abomination, and certainly didn't act like a fencer. If you mean "a smart guy who also fences" then you'll want to be a wizard or warlock that cross-classes with Rogue or Fighter and picks up Rapier. Warlord is a bad idea, since he's not much of a duelist, to be honest.


As far as the other stuff goes, I can see that we have to agree to disagree, as it seems that we are at an impass. I'm fine with that. It is a game that will be different for different people.

CHA has little to do with feinting in fencing. Proper technique is far more important here. Fencing is a skill, not some inherent ability. I understand that D&D does not perfectly emulate this (and cannot). DEX is important to fencers, but I know many individuals who are not physically fit in a way that could be called dexterous, but are still good fencers (four of whom with A ratings, of which three are Maestros). All say that good strategy is important (a function of intelligence).

Also, if I could find a way to link to the records that will work (as they are technically not on the internet but on a private server), I would produce evidence that intelligence has a great deal to do with fencing. I have fenced for over five years and teach at my club. I am working on a thesis paper for an education course for which I am enrolled in next year whose topic is the relation between sports and academics. The study that I wish I could reference shows that there is a high correlation between intelligence (based on grades, test scores, and IQ) and fencers.

Now, all of this is off topic, but if you would like to debate it further, please PM me. Finally, like much of D&D, this seems to be a topic that opinions will be different on. It seems to simply stem from how each of us views rogues and intelligence. I figured as much. You're not wrong, and neither am I. We just play different games (or rather, the same game differently).

Crow
2008-06-15, 11:49 PM
To the fencers:

Quickness is derived from power and muscle memory. Muscle memory comes from practice, while the power comes from muscle. Basically, power is a measure of how quickly you can apply the maximum amount of force. That is why guys that lack a "dextrous physique" can be quick. For instance, look at the different builds of a decathlete and a marathon runner.

If you're interested in learning more, feel free to give me a PM.

JaxGaret
2008-06-16, 12:06 AM
Nobody here has stated the obvious:

They're adventurers. Of course Int is likely to be their dump stat!

:smallsmile:


On a serious note, I see no problem with simply taking the Rogue and using Int for its third relevant stat instead of Cha. Just replace any mention of Cha with Int; it should work pretty well. Use the Artful Dodger path, but call it the Brilliant Charlatan or some such.

marjan
2008-06-16, 12:19 AM
They're adventurers. Of course Int is likely to be their dump stat!


I don't see a point in discussing this topic any further. :smallbiggrin:

Telok
2008-06-16, 03:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaxGaret View Post
They're adventurers. Of course Int is likely to be their dump stat!

I don't see a point in discussing this topic any further. :smallbiggrin:

One minor correction: Sanity is the true dump stat of an adventurer. After 7th level you can retire to a nice mansion with servants and stuff by selling your magic weapons.

fendrin
2008-06-16, 12:47 PM
the six attributes have been paired based on their effect on defenses:

Con & Str -> Fort defense
Dex & Int -> Ref defense (and AC in light armor)
Wis & Cha -> Will defense

Now, the three on the left have additional effects that are useful to all characters: HP/surges, Initiative, Perception(arguably the most important skill for all characters to have in 4e).

Thus one should always favor Con over Str, Dex over Int, and Wis over Cha. Unless, of course, your class/build specifically needs the other half of the pair.

This makes races boosting the 'better' attributes good as generalists (such as the popular notion of an Elf Wizard being better than an Eladrin Wizard :smallconfused:*)

This also means that classes that operate primarily off of the 'better' half of the attributes are in theory more powerful: Archer rangers, Devoted clerics, Infernal warlocks, rogues, etc.

This can be balanced by the strength of individual class/build feats and powers and racial feats and powers, but something tells me that the designers were not that thorough in balancing...

* The idea of Elf being a better race than Eladrin for a wizard is based in part off of the silly notion that wisdom is important for Wizards. It is not. Wis affects a total of 3 wizard spells. Granted, two of them are at-will, but Cloud of Daggers is only useful for two things: creating a choke point for minions (but only minions) & single target sniping in dim-light conditions. As for the Orb implement, it affects a whopping one enemy per encounter. It is especially useless at low levels with so few (save ends) effects [1/day sleep... woohoo]. Oh, and if you cut into int to bump up wis, you are reducing the chance of your spells from hitting in the first place.

erikun
2008-06-16, 05:53 PM
How is Dex important to a Wizard? At least, any more than Con? Dex is used for two variables, Wand mastery and Initiative. Con is used for Staff mastery and HP/Healing Surges, and helps with Fortitude to boot.

@fendrin: Wisdom also helps with Spell Accuracy feat, although even then, Wis is just "good", not necessary.

As for the OP, you're fighting an uphill battle. As already stated, either Dex or Int will increase AC and Reflex, so keeping them both high turns out to be redundant. Asking (or requiring) the rogue to have a high Int basically increases the number to abilities needed for the class up to 4, or 3 if you're focusing on just the thug/charmer lines. While I do like my rogues smart also - instinct may be Wis but thinking your way out of situations is Int - I think that the way 4e is set up discourages focusing on a Dex/Int build.

Side note: I would hope that a Warlord has some good uses for Int - a commander needs to be smart to setup planning and tactics, after all. However, I think the biggest "problem" is that the PHB is focused on agile classes over smart ones. I would bet that the Psion will focus Con/Int/Cha, and the Psychic Warrior focuses Str/Int/Cha.

fendrin
2008-06-17, 10:01 AM
How is Dex important to a Wizard? At least, any more than Con? Dex is used for two variables, Wand mastery and Initiative. Con is used for Staff mastery and HP/Healing Surges, and helps with Fortitude to boot.

Dex is important to wizards primarily for initiative. A great many of the wizard's area attacks (at lower levels anyway) do not distinguish between friend and foe. If you go first, you can drop Icy Terrain or Scorching Burst on a group of enemies without hitting your own people. There is also a nice little combo in paragon levels of Seize the Moment, Wintertouched, and Lasting Frost. Basically, if you have a higher init than your enemies you start with combat advantage and never lose it so long as you can keep hitting them with cold powers. Sieze the Moment requires 17 dex, though.


@fendrin: Wisdom also helps with Spell Accuracy feat, although even then, Wis is just "good", not necessary.
Yeah, honestly, I don't really see much need to start above a 14 in wisdom unless you are (over) specialized with the orb mastery. You could start even lower if you don't plan on using Thunderwave or Cloud of Daggers much/optimally. Well, actually CoD only really needs wisdom 12 to be effective for anything. Even if you start with a 20 wisdom it's not much of a threat to non-minions. as for Spell Accuracy, by the time you reach Epic, your wisdom will have raised by a minimum of 2, and a maximum of 6. In a 'standard' 4 to 5 person party, you will (probably) not often need to exclude more than 2-3 comrades.


Side note: I would hope that a Warlord has some good uses for Int - a commander needs to be smart to setup planning and tactics, after all. However, I think the biggest "problem" is that the PHB is focused on agile classes over smart ones. I would bet that the Psion will focus Con/Int/Cha, and the Psychic Warrior focuses Str/Int/Cha.

I'm without my books at the moment, but I seem to recall one of the suggested warlord builds (Tactical Warlord?) suggesting that Int is important. I'm not sure how that will pan out in actuality, though.

Theli
2008-06-17, 04:29 PM
It certainly seems that Int works differently than in the previous edition. Still... (And this is just my opinion.)

What I like about INT:
Minimum prereq for 2 unique feats, both at 13.
1. The feat that grants 3 additional languages. No other way to gain languages after level 1 that I'm aware, short of a ritual for temporary use iirc.
2. The jack of all trades feat that grants a +2 bonus on all untrained skills, iirc. (Don't have access to the books atm.)

Ok, as long as you don't totally dump INT, these feats would be easy to take by epic levels. But, eh... I would still see value in having these things before then.

In addition, with the 2nd feat any pluses from INT may make you a competent scholar in the knowledge skills that use them without explicitly gaining each individual skill feat.

And yes, yes. Someone with actual training would be better. And in most cases they would be taking 10... But I would also see an advantage in doubling up this. The expert takes 10. While the dabbler could roll to see if they may be able to do better than their ally's average. This is besides what use it may have for complex skill challenges.

It's a minor thing, and obviously heavily dependent on the DM. But still, I would value it. And I never really liked the 3.5 system of skill points. But that's perhaps a matter of taste.

And since it seems that only Acrobatics and Arcana have trained uses anymore... That 2nd feat seems like a pretty strong reason to have a 13 INT at start, at least if you want to be a bit more capable than your other party members.

namo
2008-06-18, 07:03 PM
Jack of All Trades does work like you describe.

@fendrin: Int vs Wis for the wizard is not as clear-cut as you make it out to be. I'd still go for Int first, but I would put many leveling points in Wis (the rest in Dex, probably).

Tactical Warlords make very good use of Int ; Warlocks can have some use for it depending on their focus.

As for Wis always being superior to Cha, I disagree. Cha is the base of all the social skills, so it matters quite a bit if your game includes social encounters. And Perception matters most to avoid being surprised: a Divine Oracle in the party solves that potential issue nicely at level 11+. I do agree that each party should have at least one character with trained Perception - but that's just like 3.5E.

Drekkan
2008-06-19, 01:30 AM
Given that some of the skills that were rolled into theivery used int, and some others I can figure how you could use wits to overcome some dextrous shortcomings...

why not houserule that players can choose to use Int or Dex for theivery checks? I mean, it's not perfect, but it helps make Int a more powerful skill and it's not a complete non sequitor.

fendrin
2008-06-19, 06:12 AM
Jack of All Trades does work like you describe.Actually, it does... 13 int pre-req, +2 feat bonus to untrained skill checks.



@fendrin: Int vs Wis for the wizard is not as clear-cut as you make it out to be. I'd still go for Int first, but I would put many leveling points in Wis (the rest in Dex, probably).
Really? What did I miss? 3 spells (Cloud of Daggers, Thunderwave, & Confusion)
Orb mastery (works on one spell/one enemy per encounter)
And the stuff it does for everybody: Wis-based Skills
Will Defense
Feat Pre-reqs

I still don't see anything nearly as important as Int, and in fact, I could build an effective wizard with a wis-dump (I like starting Wis at 14 though, primarily for Thunderwave)


As for Wis always being superior to Cha, I disagree. Cha is the base of all the social skills, so it matters quite a bit if your game includes social encounters.
That is true.


And Perception matters most to avoid being surprised: a Divine Oracle in the party solves that potential issue nicely at level 11+. I do agree that each party should have at least one character with trained Perception - but that's just like 3.5E.
Relying on having a particular path in the party is a bad idea... you have to wait 10 levels, and there is no guarantee anyone will take it (unless you do, it's a pretty good path for wizards)

Of course, reading over it again Perception doesn't seem quite as necessary as I recall... unless you actually want to be able to take your turn at watch and not get gutted by the monster you didn't see.

Antacid
2008-06-19, 07:08 AM
Wisdom is popular for Wizards who desperately want to try to get back the Batman save-or-die function of the Wizard by cheesing the save system.

The idea is, you get Orb of Imposition, Int 20, Wis 14 and Cha 12 at first level, and boost your Int and Wis every time you get ability bonuses. Then at Paragon tier you get Spell Focus. The idea is that by 14th level you use Orb to penalise an enemy's save using your Wis 18 (-4), Spell Focus (-2) and cast Sleep so everyone in the party can get lots of critical hits. A -6 penalty to saves also means that solos go from saving 80% of the time at 1st level, to saving 50% of the time at 14th.

Of course, any sensible DM will adapt by giving the players the boss encounters bunched together without time for an extended rest; but min-maxers aren't about what will make the game better in practice but what will munchkin the system as effectively as possible.

Frost
2008-06-19, 09:26 AM
Int vs Wis: PBing up to 18 is painful, and all it does in this edition is give +1 to attack. A control Wizard starts with PB 16/16/12/12/10/8. Then you have to pick race, humans, dwarves, and elfs (supposedly) are the best races for Wizards. Unfortunately, there are currently no races with +2 Int, +2 Wis.

However, a true control set up could end up looking like this:
level 1: 18 Wis, Orb, -4 to saves.
level 11: 21 Wis, Orb, Spell Focus, -7 to saves.
level 21: 26 Wis, Orb, Spell Focus, Demigod, -10 to all saves.
level 30: 28 Wis, Orb, Spell Focus, Demigod, -11 to all saves.

And the only thing that you give up to get this is -1 or -2 to attacks. And you have more Con then the -2 to attack characters, who probably can't afford spell focus either.

Not that it's the only way, but it is certainly as viable as Int focus, especially since Wizard damage is in general, crap.


Of course, any sensible DM will adapt by giving the players the boss encounters bunched together without time for an extended rest; but min-maxers aren't about what will make the game better in practice but what will munchkin the system as effectively as possible.

So any sensible DM will deprive characters of their only ability, while simultaneously depriving the party of all encounter powers?

Why does everyone advocate that the best DMs are ones that don't let their players do anything?

fendrin
2008-06-19, 01:34 PM
Int vs Wis: PBing up to 18 is painful, and all it does in this edition is give +1 to attack. A control Wizard starts with PB 16/16/12/12/10/8. Then you have to pick race, humans, dwarves, and elfs (supposedly) are the best races for Wizards. Unfortunately, there are currently no races with +2 Int, +2 Wis.
I agree that PB'ing an 18 is very painful. However, I think that ideally a wizard should start with an 18 intelligence. Hence preferring one of the +int races (human, eladrin, or tiefling if restricted to the PHB). Elves can re-roll an attack and have a boost to wis, making them a 'good' choice for those who aim for the one-shot wiswiz builds. I like humans for wizards as the extra at-will adds tactical choices, especially at low levels. Eladrin are also good if you value initiative and/or are interested in the Wiz. of the Spiral Tower path.


However, a true control set up could end up looking like this:
level 1: 18 Wis, Orb, -4 to saves.
level 11: 21 Wis, Orb, Spell Focus, -7 to saves.
level 21: 26 Wis, Orb, Spell Focus, Demigod, -10 to all saves.
level 30: 28 Wis, Orb, Spell Focus, Demigod, -11 to all saves.

And the only thing that you give up to get this is -1 or -2 to attacks. And you have more Con then the -2 to attack characters, who probably can't afford spell focus either. One (major) issue here: it's not 'all saves'. Spell Focus gives a -2 penalty to all saves (which just a quick reminder is not as good as it was in 3.5, as many or maybe even most spells do not generate saving throws). The orb gives a penalty equal to your wisdom bonus to one creature against one effect (per encounter). So for instance, if you cast sleep on a crowd of baddies you can only apply the penalty to one of them, and you would have to choose which status effect they would apply it to (sleep causes both slow and sleep).


Not that it's the only way, but it is certainly as viable as Int focus, especially since Wizard damage is in general, crap.
Int isn't just about damage. It is more important for your chance to hit. If you can't hit consistently, you can't reliably choose the target of your orb save penalty.


So any sensible DM will deprive characters of their only ability, while simultaneously depriving the party of all encounter powers?

Why does everyone advocate that the best DMs are ones that don't let their players do anything?
No, a sensible DM keeps a single player from dominating the game. I don;t feel it is necessary in this case though, as a wis-over-int wizard is a one-trick pony, and isn't really game-breaking. Kind of weak, in my opinion.

Frost
2008-06-19, 06:25 PM
I agree that PB'ing an 18 is very painful. However, I think that ideally a wizard should start with an 18 intelligence. Hence preferring one of the +int races (human, eladrin, or tiefling if restricted to the PHB). Elves can re-roll an attack and have a boost to wis, making them a 'good' choice for those who aim for the one-shot wiswiz builds. I like humans for wizards as the extra at-will adds tactical choices, especially at low levels. Eladrin are also good if you value initiative and/or are interested in the Wiz. of the Spiral Tower path.

Well if you are using +2 Int races, and starting at 16, then you have a 16 Wis anyway, not 14. And so you basically follow this same path. I also like Humans, because of the at-wills.


One (major) issue here: it's not 'all saves'. Spell Focus gives a -2 penalty to all saves (which just a quick reminder is not as good as it was in 3.5, as many or maybe even most spells do not generate saving throws). The orb gives a penalty equal to your wisdom bonus to one creature against one effect (per encounter). So for instance, if you cast sleep on a crowd of baddies you can only apply the penalty to one of them, and you would have to choose which status effect they would apply it to (sleep causes both slow and sleep).

I am well aware of all that, but since the only thing you are giving up with this method is either +1 to hit and damage or +2 to hit and damage, and in return you are auto-defeating one basic monster per combat at higher levels, and possibly at lower depending on the rolls.


Int isn't just about damage. It is more important for your chance to hit. If you can't hit consistently, you can't reliably choose the target of your orb save penalty.

I know, and my point is that you are giving up +1 or 2 to hit, and in return increasing the length of you effects on enemies considerably, once an encounter. Seriously, Int 18, Wis 14 has +1 to hit and +2 to enemies saving throws relative to this method. And if you don't build around Orb, then you give up pretty much the whole thing. +1 to hit doesn't seriously change your to hit chances.


No, a sensible DM keeps a single player from dominating the game. I don;t feel it is necessary in this case though, as a wis-over-int wizard is a one-trick pony, and isn't really game-breaking. Kind of weak, in my opinion.

And no one ever suggests preventing people from dominating the game, they suggest preventing one player from ever using his abilities, and generally preventing all players from doing so. This guy seriously just claimed that DMs should make PCs fight several boss battles in a row without letting them regain encounter powers just so that the Wizard can't use Orb Mastery more then once a day when he built his character to do so.

silvadel
2008-06-19, 06:52 PM
Int being a dump stat is a real impediment to people with above average IQ.

If I take anything below 13 int, I have to seriously dumb down my play (seeing as I have a 16x IQ), or really suffer in the role-play department.

Personally, with their stance on intelligence, I would have rather they changed it to magical aptitude or something that doesnt restrict role-playing.

Antacid
2008-06-19, 07:20 PM
Then you have to pick race, humans, dwarves, and elfs (supposedly) are the best races for Wizards. Unfortunately, there are currently no races with +2 Int, +2 Wis.

That is not unfortunate. It is clearly deliberate and intended to stop people from doing exactly what you want to do.


And the only thing that you give up to get this is -1 or -2 to attacks. And you have more Con then the -2 to attack characters, who probably can't afford spell focus either.

Except that the -2 means you're going to hit 10% less of the time and do less damage for the entire campaign. This plus the limited choice of powers requiring saves makes the build pants until you get to Paragon level at the earliest. And wizards only do appear to do crap damage if you ignore the fact that they have area attacks which give multiple chances to hit.


So any sensible DM will deprive characters of their only ability, while simultaneously depriving the party of all encounter powers?

A sensible DM will attempt to provide a balanced game, where munchkinism is as limited as possible. I'm actually not as bothered by this build now I realise how narrowly specialised it is.


This guy seriously just claimed that DMs should make PCs fight several boss battles in a row without letting them regain encounter powers just so that the Wizard can't use Orb Mastery more then once a day when he built his character to do so.

Certainly didnít say anything about two solos in the same encounter. I meant the same day.

If Iím DMing, Iím wary of anything that is obviously aimed at potentially enabling the party to one-shot Orcus. Thatís clearly what this kind of build is supposed to do. If I was running a campaign with a supervillain-dependant plot and you insisted on this build, the BBEG would coincidentally own magical items allowing him to automatically make one or more saving throws per day.

namo
2008-06-19, 09:39 PM
Jack of All Trades does work like you describe.
Actually, it does... 13 int pre-req, +2 feat bonus to untrained skill checks.
I think you read a little too fast here (emphasis added). :smallwink:


That is not unfortunate. It is clearly deliberate and intended to stop people from doing exactly what you want to do.
Other classes have races that boost their two main stats, and it's likely that down the road a race will have +2 Int, +2 Wis.


Except that the -2 means you're going to hit 10% less of the time and do less damage for the entire campaign. This plus the limited choice of powers requiring saves makes the build pants until you get to Paragon level at the earliest. And wizards only do appear to do crap damage if you ignore the fact that they have area attacks which give multiple chances to hit.
The difference should really only be -1. Then it's 5 points less : 45% chance of hitting instead of 50% in most situations, nothing crippling.

Wouldn't it be boring if all Wizards took a +Int race ? I thought you were against munchkinism.

Also, it's perfectly viable to use the Wand at low-levels then take the Orb as a Second Implement.


A sensible DM will attempt to provide a balanced game, where munchkinism is as limited as possible. I'm actually not as bothered by this build now I realise how narrowly specialised it is.
Please do not throw around accusations of munchkinism - especially if you end up recognizing that it's not the case.


If Iím DMing, Iím wary of anything that is obviously aimed at potentially enabling the party to one-shot Orcus. Thatís clearly what this kind of build is supposed to do. If I was running a campaign with a supervillain-dependant plot and you insisted on this build, the BBEG would coincidentally own magical items allowing him to automatically make one or more saving throws per day.

Solos have +5 to saves. The Orb Wizard won't one-shot them. Not that you shouldn't use your DM-Fiat items if you want to, of course.

marjan
2008-06-20, 01:04 AM
Other classes have races that boost their two main stats, and it's likely that down the road a race will have +2 Int, +2 Wis.


There are no races with + to wis and cha (str), so paladins fall short there too. Or maybe I missed them.

namo
2008-06-20, 06:57 AM
Dragonborns are +2 Str, +2 Cha which I think suits a Paladin well.

Darkflame
2008-06-20, 07:14 AM
To return to the point at hand (making Intelligence better) I have a suggestion...

Now, I've not read much of the books yet, but something is (perhaps) needed to make Int better without unbalancing the classes that either rely on it or don't. Allowing Int to give extra Trained Skills would cheapen the Feat which does the same. How about the following:

You can only buy the Skill Training (or whatever it is called) feat as many times as you have Intelligence Bonus.

Chris

marjan
2008-06-20, 11:24 AM
Dragonborns are +2 Str, +2 Cha which I think suits a Paladin well.

They sound good, until you realize that you'll be focusing on one of those stats, so they are a bit redundant. Half-Elves and Hobgoblins are better.

Blackdrop
2008-06-20, 11:53 AM
Hobs would be better as a Warlock, would they not? Having both the Con and Cha bonuses?

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-20, 12:03 PM
Hobs would be better as a Warlock, would they not? Having both the Con and Cha bonuses?

Sorta. It's usually best to focus on one stat and have the other one with a 12 or 14, and no more. Drow would probably be a bit better.

fendrin
2008-06-20, 01:54 PM
Depends on the type of warlock.

Fey Pact needs CHA much more than CON.
Infernal Pact needs CON much more than CHA.
Star Pact needs both.

Even with that, A Fey Pact warlock will be much more versatile if they have the CON to be able to use Infernal or Star powers, and the same goes for the Infernal having CHA to use Fey or Star powers.

Gypsy0001
2008-06-20, 02:55 PM
Even for inspiring warlods, intelligence is not a dump stat. There are too many warlord abilities which give too nice of bonses to ignore it together.

Look at "Lead the Attack". Look how long that power lasts... until the end of the encounter.

I know it's a daily, but it's hard to find a better boss-busting power around than that one. Even inspiring warlords are gonna want it.

As for wizards, Int is still your attack adjustment for virtually every power. Spells aren't useful if they don't land.

Frost
2008-06-20, 03:19 PM
As for wizards, Int is still your attack adjustment for virtually every power. Spells aren't useful if they don't land.

Yes, the question is, is +1 to attack and damage worth -2 to saves once an encounter, +1 damage on Cloud of daggers, extra push range, two more HP, a Healing Surge, ect.

Because that's (and all other Wis based effects) are what you give up for that +1 to hit. Oh, and since Cleric is the most common multiclass for Wizard, not all your powers are even going to necessarily key off of Int.

Human Paragon 3
2008-06-20, 03:31 PM
Quoted from another thread:


Here's how I would do Spellthief.

Start with a trickster rogue and multiclass into wizard or warlock to gain some magic like the WotC guide says. However, instead of the artful dodger ability, I'd make up a new power like this:

Spell Stealer
Whenever the rogue damages an enemy with his Sneak Attack ability, he may forgo the extra damage dice. If he does so, he gains one of the struck creature's spells or prayers as an encounter power. If the power is not expended by the end of the encounter, the power is lost. The rogue can not gain an encounter power from an enemy whose level exceeds the rogues level plus his intelligence modifier.

This would also be cool for players who want intelligence based rogues instead of STR or CHA.

You could also home brew some INT based rogue powers, or just use the Wizard powers as your INT powers.