Community

I fence.

I'm a smart kid. That's really most of what I have going for me. I'm not very fast. Not very strong. Not very endurant. Not very wise.

However, I am somewhat competent amongst the other fencing newbies because I have decent analytical ability. I remain aware of my surroundings and what I can do when a variety of attacks come at me. I anticipate my opponent's reactions to my movements. I recognize patterns in their attack routines. Etc, etc.

This is all pretty translatable and sensible. A bumbling genius type could well have excellent ability to not get killed. For example.

Walking down the hall, Professor Sigurd whistled (much to the chagrin of his companions) a jaunty tune to himself. Undoubtedly the vast treasures of the Arininian people lay somewhere below his feet. It was simply a matter of traversing the deadly traps that lay scattered throughout the ruin. No big deal. As long as you caught them before you walked into them, you were good!

*click*

Of course, if you weren't so lucky, you had a problem. Feeling the pressure plate sink beneath his feet, Sigurd's mind raced. Judging by the room's architectual layout, there was only one obvious trap type this could really be.

"Pit trap!" he shouted, attempting to leap back from the floor which had already begun to sink under him. Still, his damnable legs, as always, refused to cooperate, leaving him in a precarious position, his heels resting on solid reliable ground, but the rest of his foot (and a good chunk of his center of gravity) resting over the yawning abyss.

"Help me, help me, help me!" he shouted, his arms windmilling frantically as he tried to shift his weight enough to at least fall backwards instead of forward. He knew his companions could reach him in time though, so, with one last heroic effort, he threw his center backwards, his feet slipping out from under him. The landing was painful, his read slamming into the ground (and his head very nearly encountering it as well), but he was safe.

Tanya smiled, a sly expression. "Not bad, Professor. Next time, try to land on your feet though?"

An intelligent character with low dexterity simply makes up for the fact that they have a mediocre reaction time by already having a potential plan of action in mind.

Against a fireball? They've already scouted out a safe spot. Against a cunning rogue? They're anticipated where the attack is coming from. So on and so forth.

DaidojiTaidoru wrote:

Well first the D&D system is designed to model Indiana Jones, not Steven Hawking. For most people adding Int to Reflex makes sense. Only the truely incompetent/physically disinclined can manage to continue fail after adventuring. And D&D doesn't assume you're incompetent, you'll have to houserule that. This is not a failure on D&Ds part either, if given the choice between successfuly modeling the average and successfully modeling an edge case the system should always model the average.

Now if you must have your character be a bumbling fool and don't want to suck up the penalties there are simple justifications.

Not be negative, but I have to say that I think this is rather unnecessary as it ignores everything that was discussed before and is just a case of beating the metaphorical dead horse, been there, done that. I especially resent the bumbling fool part, which I've addressed at least 3 times previously.

Pretty much everything else: Magic sheilding.

However, THAT is a cool answer! I like the ideal of an always "on" supernatural aura (which manifests as luck/fate, clairvoyance, etc.) that helps protects spellcasters. I'm picturing Gandalf warded by an uncanny awareness, or a holy priest gifted with flashes of clairvoyance from his diety. Brilliant out-of-the-box thinking, thank you.

DaidojiTaidoru]Well first the D&D system is designed to model Indiana Jones, not Steven Hawking.

That's true. I should probably also point out something. Given the choice, and assuming the choices are equal, would you, or any of your players, choose to play Professor Henry Jones instead of Indiana?

I think most of us know the answer. Very few players would deliberately gimp their character. I know some people who are willing to gimp their character for roleplaying purposes (they like playing a charismatic character) if they have no choice. But give someone the chance to play a dashing and charismatic character who's also useful in a fight vs. one who is not, and most people will opt to be useful.

And that is, I believe, the reasoning behind the 4e mechanics. The designers have decided that choosing to have a character who's strong (high STR), smart (high INT), and charismatic (high CHA) shouldn't mean your defenses suffer. I don't have the PHB yet, so I can't give examples, but I would bet the idea is that every character can get away with 2 stats that are average or worse, and still be an effective (and successful) adventurer.

Well first the D&D system is designed to model Indiana Jones, not Steven Hawking.[/quote]
That's true. I should probably also point out something. Given the choice, and assuming the choices are equal, would you, or any of your players, choose to play Professor Henry Jones instead of Indiana?

I think most of us know the answer. Very few players would deliberately gimp their character. I know some people who are willing to gimp their character for roleplaying purposes (they like playing a charismatic character) if they have no choice. But give someone the chance to play a dashing and charismatic character who's also useful in a fight vs. one who is not, and most people will opt to be useful.

And that is, I believe, the reasoning behind the 4e mechanics. The designers have decided that choosing to have a character who's strong (high STR), smart (high INT), and charismatic (high CHA) shouldn't mean your defenses suffer. I don't have the PHB yet, so I can't give examples, but I would bet the idea is that every character can get away with 2 stats that are average or worse, and still be an effective (and successful) adventurer.

DaidojiTaidoru]For most people adding Int to Reflex makes sense. Only the truely incompetent/physically disinclined can manage to continue fail after adventuring. And D&D doesn't assume you're incompetent, you'll have to houserule that. This is not a failure on D&Ds part either, if given the choice between successfuly modeling the average and successfully modeling an edge case the system should always model the average.

Now if you must have your character be a bumbling fool and don't want to suck up the penalties there are simple justifications.

I agree - mostly.

I would argue that it makes enough sense to justify the ruling. Similarly, I could argue that Wisdom makes enough sense to justify it instead - on the perception basis, if nothing else.

Someone asked for logic to the effect of "why Intelligence and NOT something else?" I'll endeavour to provide that logic.

But first, I need to present a couple points that inform the basis of my logic:

1. Stats in D&D are by their nature more "broad" than stats in the "real world." In D&D, there's no difference between muscle power and muscle endurance, whereas in the real world, the difference can be significant. Ditto agility and manual dexterity...

2. The three mental stats in D&D draw distinctions that aren't always quite as clear cut in the real world.

3. Those distinctions may be redefined from one edition to the next, if the designers feel it makes sense.

So, to decide whether intelligence and Dex are the only appropriate stats for Reflex defense, we have to define the following:

a) What "Reflex Defense" is in Fourth Edition.
b) What "Intelligence" is in Fourth Edition.
c) What "Wisdom" is in Fourth Edition.

Once that's done, we can take a crack at logic.

Let's start with Reflex Defense. For a moment, we'll ignore "luck," which is pretty undefinable. Firstly, Reflex is the character's "touch AC," which means partly it has to do with how you handle yourself in combat. Or, put another way, it's how well, and how quickly, you can avoid attacks Secondly, it's the ability targeted by area attacks, which has to do with how well, and how quickly, you can find cover.

Clearly, "how quickly you can avoid something" is a matter of both training and natural ability. The "natural ability" involved here is clearly "dexterity."

But "how well you can avoid something" is also a matter of both training and natural ability. You may move fast, but until you decide both what to move and where to move it, you can't avoid being hit.

So, now we have an aspect of Reflex Defense that is clearly more "mental" than "physical." The question is: should the "mental" be tied to "Wisdom" or "Intelligence." Obviously, to decide that, we have to first look at what Intelligence and Wisdom are in this edition.

Intelligence has always been memory, logic, analysis, and reasoning. However, a good argument can be made that intelligence ought to also represent "how quickly" you can think. Consider the game of "speed chess." Nobody would deny that chess is primarily an intelligence-based game. You can spend hours analyzing a chess board and making moves based on logic and deduction. You can analyze one move at a time, followed by a series of possible follow-ups, followed by a series of counters, and so on. The best players go with probabilities, not intuition. So, it's safe to say that "the ability to think quickly" should be tied to the stat of intelligence.

Wisdom is about intuition, perception, understanding (especially of "people), and "common sense." The character gets a "bad feeling" when something's about to go wrong. They can anticipate, to an extent, the likelihood of danger. They can tell when someone is lying, and so on. However, in combat, the danger is obvious. No intuition is needed to guess the guy is going to attack you because he already is. No intuition is needed to know that fire burns, or that swords cut. Similarly, wisdom is not tied solely to perception since a) perception is a skill, and b) wisdom (at least in past editions of D&D) increases as a character ages. Since we know older folks eyesight and hearing tend to fail, wisdom obviously isn't primarily about perception. If we were going to make the argument that the perception side of wisdom applies to combat, we'd have to also admit that it should apply to Initiative (since a sixth sense ought to affect whether you act first). Instead, wisdom is specifically relegated to determing whether you're aware of danger rather than how quickly you react to it.

So, we have reason to believe that intelligence is strongly correlated to how quickly one can think. We also have Wisdom specifically shut out of "how quickly you react" by the separation into two separate and distinct events.

I think anyone who has ever sparred can tell you that it's entirely possible to avoid being struck by an attack based on choosing the "right counter" even if you can't do it especially quickly. Similarly, I think we can all agree that there are better and worse ways to avoid an area effect. Choosing the right one, based on what you know about how the effect works, can make all the difference.

I'm sure there will still be those who take issues with my logic, but it seems perfectly straight-forward to me. Dexterity clearly makes sense as having an effect on Reflex defense. Intelligence also clearly makes sense. Wisdom, as I see it, just doesn't.

Basically, the fast guy is just diving for his life or moving faster than his opponent. The smart guy is, instead, opting for a better defense because he knows what's coming.

(Another Indy example: think of his attempt to clear the whirling blades of decapitation in Last Crusade. He didn't just "move quickly" - he managed to reason out the proper defense in wrote: