|
5 years ago ::
Jun 03, 2008 - 3:27PM
#31
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2003
|
But I'm not thinking the smart action hero, the OP was about the bumbling wizard archetype. Let's take your example. How about stats for Indiana Jones vs his father (=Sean Connery). I'd guess that Indie has high Wis, high Int, and high Dex (even good Con and good Str -- he's really a great example of a powerful well-rounded 4E hero). Compared to his son, I'd guess that Indie's father has slightly lower Wis, but slightly better Int, and poorer Dex/Con/Str.
Their saving throws could appropriately simulated in 3E, but 4E would likely give Indie's father a better base Reflex than Indiana Jones, and I think that's just wrong.[/quote]
First off, I think it's fair to say that 4e is not about modelling the non-adventuring wizard as a player character. All PCs are assumed to be adventurers, not bumbling lab assistants.
Secondly, Indy's clearly higher level than his mostly non-adventuring father, who while clearly a capable archaeologist, is not the adventurer his son is - period.
Thirdly, Henry Jones, Jr. is probably smarter than his father. Sorry Professor, but Junior's got ya beat.
Fourthly, (and mostly off-topic) let's look at Indy's stats somewhat objectively.
Strength: Indy's clearly stronger than average, but not necessarily by much. In D&D terms, I think we can call his strength at maybe 12.
Constitution: Indy can take punishment like almost nobody. He doesn't seem to get sick, and he's the energizer bunny. However, I'm going to keep it at 15 (starting) so as to leave some room for his high mental stats. He probably puts an increase here on 1 of his level ups.
Dexterity: Indy's more agile than average, but he's no olympic athlete. Let's say 14.
Intelligence: Indy's a doctor of archaeology. By the time he was 18, he spoke 27 languages. Let's realistically call it 16 as a base, but by the time of the movies, it should be 18 - minimum.
Wisdom: Indy's pretty perceptive, but this is probably the point he shows the most need for improvement in. On the one hand, he takes reckless chances a lot. But on the other, he's more perceptive than many people. He made a lot of foolish mistakes as a young man though, so let's say this isn't a strong point. Call it a 12 base, with increases frequently going here when he "levels up."
Charisma: Indiana Jones - Women want him. Men want to BE him. They follow his lead. Even people who loathe him find him irresistable. If you accept the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles as canon (as Lucasfilm does and as I do), he lost his virginity to Mata Hari, for god's sake! Let's be reasonable and call this a 15 (though it should probably be higher).
So:
STR 12 CON 15 DEX 14 INT 16 WIS 12 CHA 15
I think that's achievable by a human with point buy in 4e. But I'm not sure.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 03, 2008 - 3:36PM
#32
|
Date Joined:
May 25, 2004
|
First off, I think it's fair to say that 4e is not about modelling the non-adventuring wizard as a player character. All PCs are assumed to be adventurers, not bumbling lab assistants.
So that's agreed. In 3E, you can play a bumbling lab assistant who starts adventuring. In 4E, not so much.
P.S. Why do you define a bumbling wizard as a "non-adventuring wizard"? I could have lots of fun with a low Dex high Int wizard. Sure, he's not as well-rounded, but he can still go on adventures, and it's maybe more interesting than a I'm-decent-at-everything wizard. Some people DO like to roleplay, and -- like in many good books and movies -- that often involves characters with flaws and shortcomings.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 03, 2008 - 3:47PM
#33
|
|
|
Roleplaying a weakness should not be automatically equated to being punished by the combat mechanics.
When you play your high int, low dex bumbling wizard, describe his actions bumping into stuff, knocking over ink bottles, tripping on the rug when he is presented to the duke.
However, D&D is a combat-heavy game. Realistically, someone that clumsy would be useless in a fantasy combat situation. 4E chooses entertainment value over realism, and allows you to have a low Dex score and still manage to avoid some attacks.
How you describe this in narration is up to you. I'm sure we've all read books or watched movies where the awkward hero stumbles just in time to move aside from an attack, or huddles behind a tree and only steps out to launch his spells, etc.
Personally, I don't usually describe every single hit and miss as a detailed action, so I am fine with just giving the Int bonus to reflex, and saying "on average, sometimes your intelligence saves you from being damaged."
If there was a very dramatic situation, or a really good opportunity to give a flavorful description, then I would make something up. If you do that every attack roll though, it gets very repetitive and tedious.
IMO, the 4E system allows for more variety in characters. Combat effectiveness has always been an important consideration for my groups, and nearly all 3.5 Wizards have Dex as their second highest stat, simply because the AC bonus is so important. (Con would be the other candidate).
The 3.5 system strongly punishes Wizards that are not either exceptionally graceful or amazingly resilient.
In 4E, someone could play a high-int, high-str wizard with a low dex, and their stats could reflect a different sort of character, without having to accept a massive deficit in the combat portions of the game.
EDIT: in response to ArtyToo's post just above this one:
In many situations (like the low-dex wizard), 3.5 made you choose between "an interesting roleplay opportunity" and "being combat effective."
Since D&D is part roleplaying and part tactical wargaming (the exact proportions vary from group to group, but I don't think you could completely eliminate one aspect or the other and still be playing D&D), this forced trade-off meant that you often couldn't fully enjoy both parts of the game.
In several ways, 4E seems to be trying to remove those trade offs, and making it easier to have a character that is both combat optimized and a rich, interesting roleplaying experience.
(note, I am not saying you can't have both in 3.5. I am saying the 4E ruleset seems designed to make it easier to do so.)
Another example is moving profession skills into the territory of fluff and out of the skill point system. No longer do you have to think (I want my character to be a master chef, but then I lose skillpoints that I need for Tumble or Concentrate)
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 03, 2008 - 3:48PM
#34
|
|
|
4e is for making well-rounded characters. Aside from the two-pronged defenses, characters also get slightly better at every skill and hitting things every couple of levels. They also get +1 to two stats every four levels, and +1 to every(!) stat at the beginning of the Paragon and Epic tiers. With that kind of set-up, it's somewhat difficult for characters to have huge, comes-up-every-time weaknesses without some kind of house ruling (see below).
However, your clumsy wizard will still be clumsy where skills are concerned, namely acrobatics, stealth and thievery. They'd also have bad aim with projectile weapons. So, clumsiness won't be completely out of the picture, it just might not come up as often as you'd like.
Easiest house rule ever: Use "Int or Dex (player's choice)" instead of "Int or Dex (whichever is highest)."
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 03, 2008 - 3:49PM
#35
|
Date Joined:
Sep 29, 2003
|
That's nice.. you've made Indy's stats.. probably pretty accurately too. Does that justify all characters being like him? No. Most stories involve a couple of guys like him (Indiana Jones, Paul Atreides, Drizzt Do'Urden.. perfect adventurers, smart, capable, skilled) but also include people around them who are not so perfect (Indy's father, Gurney Halleck, Bruenor Battlehammer) who can still contribute to both combat and non-combat encounter (hell, Indy's father took down a bloody Messerschimdt with an umbrella!). This edition doesn't even acknowledge the possibility of playing those fundamentally flawed characters.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 03, 2008 - 4:02PM
#36
|
|
|
who can still contribute to both combat and non-combat encounter (hell, Indy's father took down a bloody Messerschimdt with an umbrella!). This edition doesn't even acknowledge the possibility of playing those fundamentally flawed characters.
I am having trouble with your logic.
In 3.5, a low-dex, high int character is severely punished by the combat mechanics, meaning he will not be able to contribute as much to a combat-encounter.
4E provides exactly what you describe... a character that has some low stats *for roleplaying richness*, but is still able to be effective in combat situations. The mechanics allow you to have low-dex, and be clumsy and awkward, without forcing you to be a punching bag in combat.
To put it another way.. in 3.5, Indy's father can't take out a jet with an umbrella because his Str and Dex are low. In 4E, Indy's father still has low Str and Dex, but he can take out the jet because he is using his Int for his AC and making a Cha vs Will attack.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 03, 2008 - 4:14PM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Sep 29, 2003
|
My issue is you don't have to be an At-Will combat ability spamming super-warrior to contribute to the adventure. Even 3rd edition, flawed as it was, allowed players to play as Experts, going through their entire career without even lifting a sword. That's not even an option anymore.. anything non-combat has been nerfed to hell and back.
As for logic... I have none, never have. Logic is overrated. But I will say this.. when Indy's father finally did attack, using his umbrella to take down a fighter plane, he sure as heck wasn't making an attack roll. He was just making things very difficult for the pilot.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 03, 2008 - 4:35PM
#38
|
|
|
Even 3rd edition, flawed as it was, allowed players to play as Experts, going through their entire career without even lifting a sword. That's not even an option anymore.. anything non-combat has been nerfed to hell and back.
Why do you think this is not an option in 4E ?
What were the 3.5 rules for non-combat encounters? Skill checks and DM fiat. 4E has skill checks, DM fiat, + skill challenges. Still a tiny portion of the rules, but since it has everything any previous edition of D&D had, plus more, it certainly isn't removing any options that existed in a previous edition.
Some non-combat stuff that was governed (badly) by rules in 3.5, such as alignment and profession skills, has been completely removed from the realm of dice and stats and, (IMO) correctly assigned to pure roleplay in 4E.
Could you provide an example of a non-combat option in 3.5 that has been eliminated or forbidden in the 4E rules? (I'm not sure how you "nerf" something when the entirety of the rules is "you and your friends talk for a bit, and then the DM decides the result.")
Or were you thinking of the spells and item creation feats that are now replaced by Rituals in 4E?
How would you model Indy's father's actions in 3.5? Apply some penalty to the pilot's stats? Have the player roll some sort of skill check? Just decide on a result based on the player's descriptions?
Any of these mechanisms still exist in 4E, essentially unchanged.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 03, 2008 - 4:39PM
#39
|
Date Joined:
May 29, 2008
|
Easiest house rule ever: Use "Int or Dex (player's choice)" instead of "Int or Dex (whichever is highest)."
(same goes with allowing players to use WIS for Reflex instead of INT)
The main point though, is you now have a simple house rule for playing the bumbling genius, and most posts are now turning into the wonderful (but off topic) "4e has destroyed D&D forever!!!" diatribes that seem ever so popular :P
Here's another option for ya - if you like 3.5e better, go play that :D
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 03, 2008 - 4:51PM
#40
|
Date Joined:
Aug 11, 2006
|
Or make it a feat.
"Bumbling Sidekick."
"You use your Dexterity modifier for Reflex saves even if it's lower than your Intelligence modifier, and gain a +3 bonus to checks made to entertain people by slapstick comedy."
|
|
|
