# You primary stat should never be lower than 18



## Branduil (Jun 17, 2008)

I haven't crunched any numbers, but just looking at it logically, is there any reason to ever have less than at least an 18 in your primary stat? In most cases it seems the +1 to attack, +1 to damage, and +1 to one save far outweighs the more limited benefits of spreading your stats out. You might be slightly more survivable, but you'll hit less often, and if you hit less often, enemies die slower, allies get buffed less, etc. 

So would it be correct to say the only time you should NOT put an 18 in your primary stat is if you're doing some weird multi-classing?


----------



## Argyuile (Jun 17, 2008)

Branduil said:
			
		

> I haven't crunched any numbers, but just looking at it logically, is there any reason to ever have less than at least an 18 in your primary stat? In most cases it seems the +1 to attack, +1 to damage, and +1 to one save far outweighs the more limited benefits of spreading your stats out. You might be slightly more survivable, but you'll hit less often, and if you hit less often, enemies die slower, allies get buffed less, etc.
> 
> So would it be correct to say the only time you should NOT put an 18 in your primary stat is if you're doing some weird multi-classing?




Con is the first thing that comes to mind when I think of non-primary stats I would want to put points in.  More Healing surges and HP's are never a bad thing.


----------



## runnerXL (Jun 17, 2008)

Maybe if you were building a character to a particular theme and were not worried about min/maxing...

The most enjoyable 3.5e character I ever played was a fighter with only 14 strength (now at 9th level and it is unlikely to rise further).


----------



## Vayden (Jun 17, 2008)

Really? I don't think I'll ever get a stat over 16 w/out racial bonuses. Buying 17 and 18 is way too prohibitive now, with all of the cookies and defences based off of secondary stats. And I'm not quite enough of a min-maxer to only base my race choice off getting me to an 18 in my prime stat. 

(Example - my twf Elf Ranger right now at level 1 has Str 16, Dex 16, and Wis 16 (bought 16/14/14). No 18s, and Con/Int/Cha ranging from 8 to 12)


----------



## Vorpal Sword (Jun 17, 2008)

Branduil said:
			
		

> I haven't crunched any numbers, but just looking at it logically, is there any reason to ever have less than at least an 18 in your primary stat? In most cases it seems the +1 to attack, +1 to damage, and +1 to one save far outweighs the more limited benefits of spreading your stats out. You might be slightly more survivable, but you'll hit less often, and if you hit less often, enemies die slower, allies get buffed less, etc.
> 
> So would it be correct to say the only time you should NOT put an 18 in your primary stat is if you're doing some weird multi-classing?




When you can afford 16/14/14 on the standard point buy, I can't see a good reason to ever have less than 18.  (Has anyone else tried to play the KotS cleric?  Case in point.)

In fact, I'd go even further on the multiclassing thing... don't bother multiclassing unless you can key attack powers off an 18 (or at least a 16).


----------



## Lord Sessadore (Jun 17, 2008)

It is pretty easy to get an 18 with a racial bonus.  Though if you picked a race that didn't have a bonus to that stat, I can't see 16/16 for primary/secondary or for a class with two primaries being bad or worse than an 18 in the primary.  You pay so much for the 18 without the racial bonus that I think having some flexibility is much more attractive, and it would also allow you to spread out to some other non-primary stats.  

I don't really see a reason to avoid putting 18 in your primary stat, but I don't see any reason why it's absolutely necessary either.  Most of the pregens we've seen from Wizards have only had 16's, and they do just fine.

Edit:  remember, as long as you're still hitting just over half of the time, you're on track.  If you can achieve that, you're not subpar, as far as the system is concerned.


----------



## Dragonbait (Jun 17, 2008)

It seems like it's about the same as 3E. A fighter without a Str 18 in 4E is.. Well.. A fighter without a Str 18 in 3E. I've found 16 without racial modifiers works just as well in both games, and allows for better numbers in other stats, and in 4E some other powers are better because you didn't sink all your points in a single score.


----------



## keterys (Jun 17, 2008)

It's possible to survive without it - some races are still good for a role without giving a bonus to its primary stat.

For example, Elf Wizards and Gnome Rogues.


----------



## Vorpal Sword (Jun 17, 2008)

keterys said:
			
		

> It's possible to survive without it - some races are still good for a role without giving a bonus to its primary stat.
> 
> For example, Elf Wizards and Gnome Rogues.




Or dwarf fighters. I retract "never", but it still makes sense to get an 18 in your primary if you possibly can--and if you can't, for racial reasons, you do really need 16/16 primary/secondary.


----------



## am181d (Jun 17, 2008)

The extra +1 you get to your defense may well come at the expense of -1s to your two other defenses. Points spent in your primary aren't going into other stats that may boost your basic attacks, your hit points, you healing surges, your skills, etc.  

Also, the point of the game isn't to win.


----------



## Cadfan (Jun 17, 2008)

It depends what you're building.  In general, buying a 16 then adding a +2 racial bonus isn't prohibitively expensive, and still allows you to do a lot with your remaining points.  So if you can, you might as well.

But there are some race/class combinations that work well but haven't got +2 racial bonuses to the attack stats.  Like dwarf or elf fighters.  Or if you're doing a "two attack stat" character, you might go with a 16 or 17 in both attack stats (half elf star pact warlock, 17 in con and cha, for example).

So, it depends?  An 18 primary attack stat is nice in comparison to a 16, but its not vital to your character's survival and excellence, and if you have a good reason not to go for the 18, your character will still be competent.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 17, 2008)

1) an 18 in your primary stat is costly

2) Most (if not all) classes have secondary and tertiary stats which are important to them, and give benefits for being better than average - in flexibility of power choice if nothing else.

3) there will be very desirable feats which depend upon other stats than your primary stats (not just multiclass feats, but spell focus, or various added-damage feats for example).

So PCs that don't go all-out to maximise their primary stat will have a wider choice of powers available to them, and a wider range of feats which are likely to increase their capabilities in a number of ways.

Cheers


----------



## Gort (Jun 17, 2008)

As far as fighters go, both dwarves and eladrin can't hit 18 strength using the standard array, but both do more damage than other fighters out of the gate due to their racial weapon training feats.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 17, 2008)

Vorpal Sword said:
			
		

> Or dwarf fighters. I retract "never", but it still makes sense to get an 18 in your primary if you possibly can--and if you can't, for racial reasons, you do really need 16/16 primary/secondary.



 Dwarf Fighters can be "sticky" with a decent Wisdom, thanks to their Marking (even on a miss) + Wis bonus to AoOs. Dwarf Fighters also get one extra attack per encounter, thanks to their racial ability to use Second Wind as a Minor action. That is equivalent to their +1 expected miss each encounter (for not having a +4 Strength bonus).

However, like Elf Wizards, they're a specific exception rather than a general good idea.

*Yes, you really need an 18 in your primary attack stat, unless you are a specific exception.*

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Bialaska (Jun 17, 2008)

Dragonbait said:
			
		

> It seems like it's about the same as 3E. A fighter without a Str 18 in 4E is.. Well.. A fighter without a Str 18 in 3E. I've found 16 without racial modifiers works just as well in both games, and allows for better numbers in other stats, and in 4E some other powers are better because you didn't sink all your points in a single score.




Except that it's much harder to boost your to hit in 4e.


----------



## Mengu (Jun 17, 2008)

I suspect 16/14/14/13/10/8 will be the most popular 22 point buy. In most cases, this gives you at least a 16, probably an 18 in your primary stat, and qualifies you for a sufficient number of feats. If you look at the cliche's like Halfling Rogue and Elf Ranger, these races are built to have their top two stats at 18 and 16.

For certain Defender builds, depending on race, I can see not getting an 18, since as mentioned, Constitution can be pretty important. A Dwarf with 16's in Str and Con would be a prime example.

I think it is assumed, when building a character, you will try to get an 18 when you can.

Getting a 20 on the other hand is very costly, and knocks you off a lot of paths you can take with a character. I would go so far as to call it a sub-optimal choice for most (if not all) classes. This is not to say you can't play a dragonborn fighter with 20 strength, he could still be rockin' fun.


----------



## Cadfan (Jun 17, 2008)

Bialaska said:
			
		

> Except that it's much harder to boost your to hit in 4e.



Doesn't actually matter.


----------



## Dragonbait (Jun 17, 2008)

Bialaska said:
			
		

> Except that it's much harder to boost your to hit in 4e.




But ability scores raise quickly. +1 to two stats every 4 levels? Add half your level to hit? +1 to all stats at level 11 and 21? +2 or +3 if you are proficient with a weapon? +# enchanted weapons still add to hit? Is it really that much harder to boost your to hit? I'm not a mathematician or someone with enough Aspergers syndrome to figure out a slew of tables and averages but it SEEMS to me that it is not the case.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 17, 2008)

Dragonbait said:
			
		

> But ability scores raise quickly. +1 to two stats every 4 levels? Add half your level to hit? +1 to all stats at level 11 and 21? +2 or +3 if you are proficient with a weapon? +# enchanted weapons still add to hit? Is it really that much harder to boost your to hit? I'm not a mathematician or someone with enough Aspergers syndrome to figure out a slew of tables and averages but it SEEMS to me that it is not the case.



 Except you will always be behind the curve, because everyone else -- even the guys who started right, with an 18 in their primary attack stat -- will be doing the same exact thing.

You'll always be inferior to them, with no way to ever catch up.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Nifft (Jun 17, 2008)

Mengu said:
			
		

> I suspect 16/14/14/13/10/8 will be the most popular 22 point buy.



 That's one, the other is 16/16/13/11/10/8.

Both assume you have a racial +2 in your attack stat, or some other way to compensate.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Dragonbait (Jun 17, 2008)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Except you will always be behind the curve, because everyone else -- even the guys who started right, with an 18 in their primary attack stat -- will be doing the same exact thing.
> 
> You'll always be inferior to them, with no way to ever catch up.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




And this is different from 3ed.. How?


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Jun 17, 2008)

am181d said:
			
		

> Also, the point of the game isn't to win.




well yes and no. The point is to live. This can be done in many different ways.


----------



## Regicide (Jun 17, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Doesn't actually matter.




Except it does.  3.5E Attacking 5x/round with the first 3 being "anything but a 1" hits, being 4 STR or DEX down doesn't have as big of an effect as attacking once per round with a 50% chance to hit, or 40% if you have 4 less STR.  The difference is huge.  In 4E you really really REALLY want to max out your prime stat.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Jun 17, 2008)

I like the standard array, because I think a lot of the game is built on the assumption that characters will have a 16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10.  I'm sure the various point buy deviations don't make much of a difference.  I'm tempted to say that I'd allow the option to retcon stats with a point buy after several sessions of play, but I'd have to see how things are going.

The problem of non-maximized characters behind the curve has struck me as well.  The problem existed in 3rd edition, but with array/point buy as the recommended methods of stat generation, no stat-boosting magic items, and the lack of +attack bonus, I think the problem is more apparent this time around.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 17, 2008)

Dragonbait said:
			
		

> And this is different from 3ed.. How?



 In 3e, you could take feats like Weapon Finesse. 4e? Not so much.

In 4e, Power Attack is not optimal; in 3e, it was. In 3e, you could also Power Attack for one point less and still hit almost as hard. In 4e, you are best served by not using Power Attack and just hitting with your powers.

In 3e, there were a number of ways to be able to make a melee attack as a Touch attack. In 4e, not so much.

In 3e, there were many many MANY effects which could boost your attack bonus. In 4e, there are not so many, and most of the one you can control yourself won't stack.

So: 4e has fewer bonuses, fewer bonus types, smaller overall bonuses, and you as a player have less "granularity" in terms of spending bonuses.

Do you get it, or do you have more questions?

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 17, 2008)

I still think you are making a mountain out of a mole hill about "essential" starting with a max stat 18 is in 4E.


----------



## Branduil (Jun 17, 2008)

I think, one of the main reasons to get your attacks as high as possible is daily powers. If you miss with an at-will, no big deal, but the nature of daily powers makes maximizing your primary stat of utmost importance. You don't want to waste a single daily attack power if at all possible, and the only reliable way to increase your odds of hitting with one is having a higher primary stat.


----------



## Dragonbait (Jun 17, 2008)

Nifft said:
			
		

> In 3e, you could take feats like Weapon Finesse. 4e? Not so much.



True, it's in certain class powers, but I agree that it would have been nice to have WF as a feat.



> In 4e, Power Attack is not optimal; in 3e, it was. In 3e, you could also Power Attack for one point less and still hit almost as hard. In 4e, you are best served by not using Power Attack and just hitting with your powers.



Okay



> In 3e, there were a number of ways to be able to make a melee attack as a Touch attack. In 4e, not so much.



In the core? Because, really, if you are comparing 6 or 8 years of material of 3e to a single set of 4e books then 4e is hard pressed when it comes to versatility. BUT if you look at JUST the core PH of 3E and core PH of 4E, this is not the case.



> In 3e, there were many many MANY effects which could boost your attack bonus. In 4e, there are not so many, and most of the one you can control yourself won't stack.



Is that so? Are you talking about situational bonuses from positioning and so on? Class powers? Magic bonuses?


----------



## katahn (Jun 17, 2008)

What the guy who starts with a 16 instead of an 18 loses in "chance to hit" they most certainly can make up in other areas that are just as important.  They might have better defenses in other areas, they might have better success with untrained skills, they might start with more hit points, they might successfully use social skills to avoid dire consequences.

Sure the 16 str fighter has 5% less chance to hit than the 18 str fighter on a str vs. <whatever> defense.  But that 16 str fighter might have 10-15% better odds dealing with attacks against ref or will, might have a couple extra hit points at first level (which in turn boosts values for healing surges or even numbers of healing surges), is more likely to qualify for feats that boost their power in other areas, and so on.

Examining the effectiveness of a character purely from their primary attack ability score is myopic to say the least.


----------



## phil500 (Jun 17, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> 1) an 18 in your primary stat is costly




not if you choose the race with that in mind.  i think thats what the OP wanted to say- you should buy a 16 and play a race that has a +2.


----------



## Rith the Wanderer (Jun 17, 2008)

Saying that an 18 in your main attack stat is completely necessary to not lose is an exaggeration, but it is much more useful than it was in 3e. Yeah, you gain half your level to attacks, but enemies gain their level to defenses. Go through the MM and calculate what a character with an who started with an 18 and put points in it whenever possible, items of that monsters level, proficiency bonus if applicable, and add half the monsters level rounding down. This gives you about a 10 or 11 to hit, plus or minus a couple points depending on what defenses you'll be attacking (will defense will usually have a better chance, AC on soldiers and Fort on brutes will almost always have less).

 If you did this with a 3e fighter looking at it's first or second attacks, you'd have at least 90%, probably a 100%. It would probably end up around 60% total over all four attacks, but that would be because the last one would always miss. The difference is your still doing damage every turn, where in 4e your not, you've just got the one attack and you better hit with it.

 Having those two less points means a 5% higher miss chance for the rest of your characters career. This is *almost* never worth whatever you would put those 5 point buy points into. It is much more likely that it would be worth those extra 7 points if you are doing it organically (no race bonus) especially considering you've already spent a good amount just to get to the 16.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 17, 2008)

Dragonbait said:
			
		

> In the core?



 In the SRD, sure.



			
				Dragonbait said:
			
		

> Is that so? Are you talking about situational bonuses from positioning and so on? Class powers? Magic bonuses?



 Just in the PHB, without bothering to get magic items (which frequently stack), you can get these to add to your attack roll:
- Morale bonuses (Bardic music, spells)
- Rage (+4 Str = +2 to attack)
- Weapon Focus
- Weapon enhancement (_greater magic weapon_)
- Luck (_divine favor_)
- Insight
- _Haste_

At high level in 3e, it's easy to buy your way to a decent attack bonus. *You cannot do this in 4e*.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## phil500 (Jun 17, 2008)

Nifft said:
			
		

> So: 4e has fewer bonuses, fewer bonus types, smaller overall bonuses, and you as a player have less "granularity" in terms of spending bonuses.




Basically 4e keeps things really tight around the d20.  your to hit wont change much between 1st and 30th level.

thats why the cleric at will seems broken.  if you roll with 18 strength, at level 1 you are handing out +4 to hit, by level 30 you are handing out +9 to melee attacks.  seems to me people will wait for this to land before trying their melee dailies, and the cleric will become a bit of a spambot.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Jun 17, 2008)

If you are a min/maxer yes you should have 18+ in your primary ability score.

Same as every edition.

But 4E is the first edition that guarantees an 18 as the standard.


----------



## Benly (Jun 17, 2008)

I would say it should never be lower than 18 _without a good reason_.

If you have a specific reason in mind, it can often be much better to have a 16 or 17 in your main (including any racial bonuses) and high secondary abilities. However, without such a reason and just building abstractly, a 16 with a +2 racial is the best "default".

The situation is much the same as it was with caster levels in 3.x. Novice optimizers memorized "never give up caster levels" and stuck to it religiously. Experienced optimizers knew when giving up a caster level was worth it.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 17, 2008)

phil500 said:
			
		

> thats why the cleric at will seems broken.  if you roll with 18 strength, at level 1 you are handing out +4 to hit, by level 30 you are handing out +9 to melee attacks.  seems to me people will wait for this to land before trying their melee dailies, and the cleric will become a bit of a spambot.



 Yeah, I'm a bit worried about that too. Conceptually I'd rather have it be a Str vs. AC which then gave your *Wis* bonus to your ally's attack. However, I want to see it in play a bit first. 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Xorn (Jun 17, 2008)

I like the 16/14/13/12/11/10 as well.  You're low stat is going to be a 12 eventually, and unless you're human you can easily land either 18/16 for 16/16/15.

Because feats have odd ability requirements, the importance of odd ability scores at start is bigger.

The ranger (archer) in my current playgroup went with 18/14/11/10/10/10 and she's playing out great so far.  (20 dex, 16 wis, 11 con)  She's fragile, but man she's a nightmare striker!

I also agree that +1 to hit is a very big deal in 4E, because scaling keeps the target defense "on the d20".  While you are adding your level bonus and attribute increases to your attack rolls, the monsters are adding the same to their defenses.  That little +1 extra, and the feats are going to be the edges that put you ahead of the curve.

Every level 10 is adding 5 to their attacks and defenses.  It's the remaining modifiers that separate everyone from a 55% chance to hit.


----------



## keterys (Jun 17, 2008)

> I'd rather have it be a Str vs. AC which then gave your Wis bonus to your ally's attack.




Same general effect - still a big ol' +8 or whatever to hit, which is just extreme.


----------



## Branduil (Jun 17, 2008)

I think with some builds it may even be preferable to go for the vaunted 20. Particularly with Wizards and archery-focused Rangers. An Elven Ranger can start off with 

Str 10
Con 13
Dex 20
Int 10
Wis 15
Cha 8

and be none the worse for the wear.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 17, 2008)

keterys said:
			
		

> Same general effect - still a big ol' +8 or whatever to hit, which is just extreme.



 Nah, Str to attack / Wis as bonus means you'd have to neglect Charisma and Constitution for 30 levels, which means you'll be suffering in other ways.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## JohnSnow (Jun 17, 2008)

Flat disagree.

There's no rational reason to insist on an 18 in your primary stat. For one, a 17 is almost as good and will be an 18 by 4th-level. For two, I refuse to let my class choices be restricted so narrowly.

For three, it's sometimes hard to say what your "primary stat" should be. Every class has _three_ key abilities. And occasionally, the most obvious choice for a race is one where they don't get a +2 to the key stat. For example, Tieflings get bonuses to INT and CHA, but all the infernal pact warlock powers depend on CON. Does that mean you shouldn't play an Infernal Pact Tiefling Warlock? Don't be absurd.

I'd actually go so far as to say that Fourth Edition finally makes different stat choices than just Max primary, make secondary decent and dump the rest, not only viable, but, under the proper conditions, desirable.

I can see all kinds of reasons to stack your stat boosts to get 16/16/16/x/x/x. However, the tradeoffs are such that the desirability of high stats in your key attributes means that most characters will have one to two stats of 8 or 10. There's tons of other valid builds. All the arrays on pages 17-18 (default and the table of possibles with point buy) are viable when paired with the right stat boosts and the right character build.

Personally, I'd never pay the premium to boost a stat to 17 or 18 so as to get a racial-adjusted score of 19 or 20. But I'm sure there are others who'd think that's a great idea.

There's no longer "one correct array" for a starting character. And that's a good thing.


----------



## Lab_Monkey (Jun 17, 2008)

This is a really interesting thread.  I had planned on making an axe focused half-elf warlord (inspiring).  Now you all have me questioning that decision and the way I allocated my stats.

Here's what I was thinking:
Str 16, Con 15, Dex 10, Int 14, Wis 8, Cha 16

Then bumping str and cha at every opportunity.  The high con was for the axe focus and to qualify for heavy armor feats, and the extra hp/surges he'll need at the front line. 

Here are the other stat options I came up with:
Str 16, Con 16, Dex 10, Int 12, Wis 10, Cha 16
or
Str 16, Con 15, Dex 10, Int 11, Wis 8, Cha 18 (this seems obviously sub-optimal now)
or
Str 16, Con 16, Dex 10, Int 13, Wis 8, Cha 16
or 
Str 18, Con 13, Dex, 10, Int 10, Wis 8, Cha 16

Any insight on which of these arrays would be optimal?


----------



## Lab_Monkey (Jun 17, 2008)

Also, the arguments about the advantage of an 18 over a 16 in your primary attack stat also favor the use of the +3 proficiency weapons (i.e., blades) over the +2 proficiency weapons (i.e., axes).


----------



## Nifft (Jun 17, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> For example, Tieflings get bonuses to INT and CHA, but all the infernal pact warlock powers depend on CON. Does that mean you shouldn't play an Infernal Pact Tiefling Warlock? Don't be absurd.



 Hellfire Blood is an explicit fix. Tiefling Warlocks are all viable, thanks to that specific feat.



			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> There's no longer "one correct array" for a starting character. And that's a good thing.



 Right, there are two: 16/14/14/13/10/8 and 16/16/13/11/10/8.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 17, 2008)

Branduil said:
			
		

> I haven't crunched any numbers, but just looking at it logically, is there any reason to ever have less than at least an 18 in your primary stat?




Your DM is enforcing the fixed array?


----------



## Cadfan (Jun 17, 2008)

Regicide said:
			
		

> Except it does.  3.5E Attacking 5x/round with the first 3 being "anything but a 1" hits, being 4 STR or DEX down doesn't have as big of an effect as attacking once per round with a 50% chance to hit, or 40% if you have 4 less STR.  The difference is huge.  In 4E you really really REALLY want to max out your prime stat.



Alright, I'll correct.  IF you played in a campaign where you regularly encountered enemies whom you struck on "anything but a 1" on the majority of your attacks in your iterative attack chain, then you will see a difference in the value of a +1 to attack in 3e versus 4e.

For the rest of us in the real world, "anything but 1 hits" situations weren't actually common in 3e.  And situations where you hit on "anything but a 1" with several of your iterative attacks _really_ weren't common.

As Nifft points out, what matters is the curve, and whether you meet, exceed, or fall behind it.  4e has a curve just like 3e does.  And while the curves are different, the math behind how they're affected by a +1 bonus remains virtually identical between the systems.  You have a chance of hitting, a chance of missing, its mediated by a roll of a d20, and a +1 is a +1 either way.

Suppose my 4e character hits on a 9+.  If I improve that to an 8+, I get about an 8% boost in effective damage over the long term.

Suppose my 3e character hits on a 6+ with his first attack, an 11+ with his second, and a 16+ with his third.  A +1 bonus to attack gives me a net increase of about 12% when using iterative attacks.

And if you must know, if your first attack hits on a 1+, your second on a 6+, your third on a 11+, and your fourth on a 16+, a +1 to your attack roll _still_ gives you a net benefit of about 9%.

Even if you can come up with some contrived circumstances in which a character in 3e hits on a number so incredibly low as to make a +1 less valuable for him during an iterative attack than it is for a 4e character doing a typical attack, which won't be easy to do mind you, you'll STILL have to deal with the fact that we're talking about 2 and 3% differences between the value of a +1 in each system.

+1s are valuable.  They were valuable in 3e, and they're valuable in 4e.  Its easy and cheap to get an 18 in 4e, so you might as well.  But if you have a good reason not to, don't worry about it.  Its still just a +1.


----------



## evilbob (Jun 17, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> 1) an 18 in your primary stat is costly
> 
> 2) Most (if not all) classes have secondary and tertiary stats which are important to them, and give benefits for being better than average - in flexibility of power choice if nothing else.
> 
> ...



I was going to say more, but this sums up my opinion perfectly.

I tried stating a character with 18, 13, 13, 10, 10, 8 (+racials).  And then I realized I'd never get all the feats I wanted.  Also, some not-really-too-minor aspects of your character are going to be very bland or even poor:  you're going to have to give up HP, or initiative, or being good in skills, or something.  In the end I switched to a more even spread and I'm happier.


----------



## Branduil (Jun 17, 2008)

Lab_Monkey said:
			
		

> This is a really interesting thread.  I had planned on making an axe focused half-elf warlord (inspiring).  Now you all have me questioning that decision and the way I allocated my stats.
> 
> Here's what I was thinking:
> Str 16, Con 15, Dex 10, Int 14, Wis 8, Cha 16
> ...



Personally, I'd go for the last one. You can pump up Str at every opportunity, and as long as you also up Con a couple times you can still qualify for the feats you're after. The only place you might suffer a little is Reflex Defense, but with shields, items, and the Lightning Reflexes feat you can minimize that a bit. Of course, it's up to you how you want to stat your character.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 17, 2008)

evilbob said:
			
		

> I was going to say more, but this sums up my opinion perfectly.
> 
> I tried stating a character with 18, 13, 13, 10, 10, 8 (+racials).  And then I realized I'd never get all the feats I wanted.



 Then we're discussing different things: my position is that you need an 18 in your primary attack stat *after* racial modifiers.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Spatula (Jun 17, 2008)

katahn said:
			
		

> What the guy who starts with a 16 instead of an 18 loses in "chance to hit" they most certainly can make up in other areas that are just as important.



Not really.  Just about everything you do in combat involves rolling to hit.  If you can't hit, your turns are mostly wasted.  Utility/support actions (like healing and buffing) are now practically free, or tied to your attacks, to allow support characters to fufill their role and still be able to attack.

Hitting is everything in 4e combat.

Now, that doesn't mean that a 16 in your attack stat is not viable, but it does have a big impact.  I think a 16 can work fine for AC attacks, because you can use a sword to make up for the loss of hit.  It's a bit dicier for base defense attacks - many people have noted that the KotS half-elf "pew pew" cleric is pretty crappy in actual play because +3 translates into rarely hitting.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jun 17, 2008)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Hellfire Blood is an explicit fix. Tiefling Warlocks are all viable, thanks to that specific feat.




True, but that's a feat you can't spend on something else. Yes, it helps to make Star Pact and Infernal Pact Tiefling Warlocks viable, but it also helps to max out the fire-focused Tiefling wizard.

And it does nothing for the Star and Infernal Encounter powers available at level 1.

In other words it helps sometimes...but not always.



			
				Nifft said:
			
		

> Right, there are two: 16/14/14/13/10/8 and 16/16/13/11/10/8.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




Nonsense.

Any build that gets you a 16 in at least one stat (after racial bonuses) means you're no more than 1 point "behind" the two character builds you mentioned. That's true of _every single array_ listed on pages 17-18.

In exchange you might end up with a better will, ref, fort, or more hit points (and healing surges). For instance, a character who doesn't use strength for attack might choose to dump strength and go with a good constitution score (for more hit points and more healing surges).

Chances are good that, barring circumstances where people want both an attack stat and its corresponding defense stat (as strength AND CON), most people will choose to have at least a couple of 10's (or even 8) in their bottom 3 scores.

Of course, certain character concepts require one to take feats that have stat prerequisites, which can alter the "obvious" choice.

I guess I just don't think it's nearly as cut and dried as you do.


----------



## evilbob (Jun 17, 2008)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Then we're discussing different things: my position is that you need an 18 in your primary attack stat *after* racial modifiers.



Oh, ok - I see.  Yes, I agree with you there.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jun 17, 2008)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Then we're discussing different things: my position is that you need an 18 in your primary attack stat *after* racial modifiers.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




So, only humans and dragonborn should be fighters then?

Or are you saying that the only viable build for other fighters is to waste their points buying an 18? Except that wasn't one of your two arrays.

So, based on your self-imposed restrictions, the "dwarf fighter" is nonviable. Clearly, they should only be clerics, paladins, or warlocks (star or infernal). Which means the designers were bonkers. 

So, am I interpreting you correctly?


----------



## Branduil (Jun 17, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> So, only humans and dragonborn should be fighters then?
> 
> Or are you saying that the only viable build for other fighters is to waste their points buying an 18? Except that wasn't one of your two arrays.
> 
> ...



A Dwarf Fighter with

Str 18
Con 15
Dex 10
Int 10
Wis 15
Cha 8

is perfectly viable.


----------



## Arbitrary (Jun 17, 2008)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Except you will always be behind the curve, because everyone else -- even the guys who started right, with an 18 in their primary attack stat -- will be doing the same exact thing.
> 
> You'll always be inferior to them, with no way to ever catch up.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




This is an excellent argument as to why to not roll for stats in 4th edition but I don't think it is nearly as big of a deal with a point buy system as long as the decisions being made with stat distribution or race still have a purpose.

edit - That dwarf is going to get punished by his low Reflex defense constantly.


----------



## Branduil (Jun 17, 2008)

Arbitrary said:
			
		

> This is an excellent argument as to why to not roll for stats in 4th edition but I don't think it is nearly as big of a deal with a point buy system as long as the decisions being made with stat distribution or race still have a purpose.
> 
> edit - That dwarf is going to get punished by his low Reflex defense constantly.




Possibly, but if he goes sword-and-board, and takes Lightning Reflexes, he can minimize the pain. There's no feat he can take to get back the +1 to attack and damage.


----------



## Rith the Wanderer (Jun 17, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> *_snip_* Now, that doesn't mean that a 16 in your attack stat is not viable, but it does have a big impact.  I think a 16 can work fine for AC attacks, because you can use a sword to make up for the loss of hit.  It's a bit dicier for base defense attacks - many people have noted that the KotS half-elf "pew pew" cleric is pretty crappy in actual play because +3 translates into rarely hitting.




I agree with the snipped section of your post completely. 

However, the 16 really will work just as badly or just as good for a melee cleric as a 16 for a pewpew cleric, as the +3 is going to just about cancel out (or maybe just take you over cancelling out, by about .25) on the average for enemies. Its even worse if the cleric doesn't take the proficiency for swords and ends up with a +2 weapon. The other defenses are about 3 points lower than AC (in actuality, fortitude is closer to 1 or 2 lower and reflex and will are closer to 3 or more lower). That is just an average of course, and there are a ton of enemies that contradict this, but the trend is definately something to consider.


----------



## mlooney (Jun 17, 2008)

Branduil said:
			
		

> A Dwarf Fighter with
> 
> Str 18
> Con 15
> ...




Right up until he fights some that attacks reflex.


----------



## Mengu (Jun 17, 2008)

I think we have 3 camps in this thread. Some claiming you need an 18 before racial modifiers, some claiming you need an 18 after racial modifiers, and some saying neither.

I'm of the opinion, majority of the time, you will want an 18 after racial modifiers. The standard array, as well as all the race/class selection advice in the PHB support that this was by design.

And I think the two stat arrays Nifft posted (16/14/14/13/10/8 and 16/16/13/11/10/8) are the ones we will see most frequently, though the first one should be more popular since it doesn't waste any points. It could easily have been the standard array, and no one would be complaining about it.




			
				Lab_Monkey said:
			
		

> Here are the other stat options I came up with:
> Str 16, Con 16, Dex 10, Int 13, Wis 8, Cha 16



This is what I would go for. gives you a good starting healing surge, more surges from the beginning, qualifies you for heavier armor, and the good Con bonus can also give you a nice Dire Radiance or Hellish Rebuke attack.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jun 17, 2008)

Branduil said:
			
		

> A Dwarf Fighter with
> 
> Str 18
> Con 15
> ...




Oh, I agree completely. But, IMO, so is one with:

Str 17
Con 17
Dex 11
Int 10
Wis 14
Cha 8

However, neither of those distributions:

(18, 13, 13, 10, 10, 8) or;
(17, 15, 12, 11, 10, 8),

nor any of the other variants was deemed "correct" by Nifft. So clearly, his argument has to give at either:

  How many arrays are "correct," or;

  Whether you have to have an 18 in your attack stat to make a viable character.

Personally, I think he's wrong on both counts. But that's just my opinion.


----------



## Branduil (Jun 17, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Oh, I agree completely. But, IMO, so is one with:
> 
> Str 17
> Con 17
> ...



It's not really a question of viable vs. not-viable. The question is, is an 18 in your primary stat more valuable than a more even distribution? I would say, the vast majority of the time, the 18 will prove to more valuable in the long run.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 17, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> So, only humans and dragonborn should be fighters then?
> 
> Or are you saying that the only viable build for other fighters is to waste their points buying an 18? Except that wasn't one of your two arrays.
> 
> ...



Nope. 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## rhm001 (Jun 17, 2008)

An 18 is a perfectly good score, but so is a 16. Why? Take the 18 if you want combat to go faster. Because it will, one way or the other. You'll hit more often, but one or two of your defenses will be lower than those of the 16 character, so you'll get hit more often, too (by something other than what you were swinging at if you've killed it, but hit nonetheless; solos are the exception now).

And that should be a conscious part of your character design, but faster isn't always going to be better, depending on what the other stats do for you and potential power combinations.


----------



## The Sword 88 (Jun 17, 2008)

I know this is a specific case but for a wizard it seems you should always have a 20 if possible, 18 if not in your INT as it is the only thing adding to your hit and dmg at first and contributes to your AC and REF, and helps you with your rituals.  CON and WIS are the only other stats that are moderately useful and starting with a 13 in those and 10's in the others seems fine.


----------



## Cadfan (Jun 17, 2008)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Nope.
> 
> Cheers, -- N



Right.  Nifft and I actually agree on almost everything related to this subject, he just phrases things more pessimistically than I do.    

1. Default rule: Go for an 18 after racial mods.  Its not that expensive, and it is useful.
2. Going for a 20 after racial mods is rather expensive, and less worth it than many people think.
3. Don't go for a 16 unless you have a specific reason for doing so.


----------



## Branduil (Jun 17, 2008)

The Sword 88 said:
			
		

> I know this is a specific case but for a wizard it seems you should always have a 20 if possible, 18 if not in your INT as it is the only thing adding to your hit and dmg at first and contributes to your AC and REF, and helps you with your rituals.  CON and WIS are the only other stats that are moderately useful and starting with a 13 in those and 10's in the others seems fine.



Yeah, the use-your-Int-instead-of-Dex-for-AC thing makes the Wizard even more of a SAD class than it already was.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jun 17, 2008)

Mengu said:
			
		

> I think we have 3 camps in this thread. Some claiming you need an 18 before racial modifiers, some claiming you need an 18 after racial modifiers, and some saying neither.
> 
> I'm of the opinion, majority of the time, you will want an 18 after racial modifiers. The standard array, as well as all the race/class selection advice in the PHB support that this was by design.
> 
> And I think the two stat arrays Nifft posted (16/14/14/13/10/8 and 16/16/13/11/10/8) are the ones we will see most frequently, though the first one should be more popular since it doesn't waste any points. It could easily have been the standard array, and no one would be complaining about it.




I agree that many people will _want_ an 18 after racial modifiers. It's without doubt true that there are advantages to being min/maxed in that way. However, there's a benefit to odd stats in 4e.

At 4th-level, when the first stat raise sets in, Character A (who has an 18 in his primary attack stat) and Character B (his 17 stat counterpart) both raise their primary stat 1 point. Character A goes from +4 to...+4. Character B, by contrast, goes from +3 to +4. Now, for 4 levels, B is totally caught up. Assuming they keep putting a boost into that every level, A pulls away at 8th-level, and gets caught (stat bonus-wise) again at Level 11.

People are making a BIG deal about +1 to hit and damage. And it's good, no doubt. But it's not SO good that it's worth everything. I can think of plenty of totally viable characters that lack an 18 in their primary attack stat (at 1st-level).


----------



## Branduil (Jun 17, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Right.  Nifft and I actually agree on almost everything related to this subject, he just phrases things more pessimistically than I do.
> 
> 1. Default rule: Go for an 18 after racial mods.  Its not that expensive, and it is useful.
> 2. Going for a 20 after racial mods is rather expensive, and less worth it than many people think.
> 3. Don't go for a 16 unless you have a specific reason for doing so.



Right, so 18 is essentially the default target. 16 or 20 are reserved for outside cases; 16 for cases where the synergy with other high stats and available feats make the 16 worth at least as much as an 18 with lower overall stats; 20 for cases like the Wizard and the archery-focused Elf Ranger where you can completely dump 3 stats with no real penalty.


----------



## Regicide (Jun 17, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> For the rest of us in the real world, "anything but 1 hits" situations weren't actually common in 3e.  And situations where you hit on "anything but a 1" with several of your iterative attacks _really_ weren't common.




  Huh?  Did you play 3E?  Haste, which gives you a 2nd attack at your best to hit is VERY common, as were bow feats which gave multiple attacks at or near your best to hit.

  Likewise attacks of opportunity *cough* spiked chain *cough* are at your best to-hit, quite possibly higher with deft opportunist.  Weapon Supremacy was another giving a fighter with chain easily 4 attacks in a round at their highest to-hit or better.

  By 15th level a melee's bonus to hit will normally be well beyond the AC of a typical opponent even if your DM doesn't allow wishs to increase stats.



			
				Cadfan said:
			
		

> As Nifft points out, what matters is the curve, and whether you meet, exceed, or fall behind it.  4e has a curve just like 3e does.  And while the curves are different, the math behind how they're affected by a +1 bonus remains virtually identical between the systems.  You have a chance of hitting, a chance of missing, its mediated by a roll of a d20, and a +1 is a +1 either way.




  Exceeeeept... 4E is based around the curve having players keeping the same to-hit chance from level 1 to level 30.  3E is based around players getting additional attacks at a lower to hit, but the likelyhood of hitting increaseing.  A bonus in one system is completely different than in the other.



			
				Cadfan said:
			
		

> Suppose my 4e character hits on a 9+.  If I improve that to an 8+, I get about an 8% boost in effective damage over the long term.
> 
> Suppose my 3e character hits on a 6+ with his first attack, an 11+ with his second, and a 16+ with his third.  A +1 bonus to attack gives me a net increase of about 12% when using iterative attacks.
> 
> And if you must know, if your first attack hits on a 1+, your second on a 6+, your third on a 11+, and your fourth on a 16+, a +1 to your attack roll _still_ gives you a net benefit of about 9%.




  Your 6+ on first attack is completely unrealistic for 3E.  Take an 11th level barbarian with minimal benefits, a +3 weapon, +4 str item (or heck, bull strength buff), high strength + rageing (22 + 4 + 6 = 32 STR), and +2 from feats or whatever.  He's at +11 level + 11 str + 3 weapon +2 feats or flanking = +27 to hit.

   +27 to hit.  Looking at SRD Fire Giant CR10 = AC 23.  Storm Giant CR13 = AC 27.  Iron Golem CR 13 = AC 30.  Adult Black Dragon CR11 = AC 27.

  Those are some of the most challenging monsters for their CR, and with the exception of the golem which is 2 CRs above the barbarian, he's hitting on a 2+ for all of them.  Add on haste and he's hitting an adult black dragon at 2+, 2+, 6+, 11+.  The more typical fight of the fire giant is 2+, 2+, 2+, 7+.  There is nothing contrived about it.  That is how 3.5E works.  I could also easily add in another +4 to hit from feats/items or buffs if I wanted, making the dragon a 2+, 2+, 2+, 7+ as well.



			
				Cadfan said:
			
		

> +1s are valuable.  They were valuable in 3e, and they're valuable in 4e.  Its easy and cheap to get an 18 in 4e, so you might as well.  But if you have a good reason not to, don't worry about it.  Its still just a +1.




  A +1 boost from a prime stat is invaluable in 4E because there is no replacement for it.  In 3E there was.


----------



## Cadfan (Jun 17, 2008)

Random comments.

1. Honestly?  The default array of 16/14/13/12/11/10 _really isn't bad._  I can throw together a human hammer wielding fighter using a Nifft Approved array (+2 human bonus in str) and have 18/16/11/10/13/8, or 18/14/14/10/13/8, but that's just not all that different from a 18/14/12/11/13/10.  Comparing the first array to this one, thats +1 con lost in favor of +1 cha.  Not optimal, but also hardly noticeable.  Comparing the second, +1 dex is lost in favor of +1 cha and a point in int that won't make a difference until level 11.  Again, not optimal, but also close to irrelevant.

2. Almost everyone ignores the 17.  Poor 17!  There's nothing wrong with you!  You play exactly the same as an 18 for half the career of the character!


----------



## Bialaska (Jun 17, 2008)

I think the major issue regarding having an 18 or a 16 is the fact that you lack a lot of the buffing that were in 3.5, which means that your chance to hit is much lower. Not only that, you also deal more damage with a higher score. So you hit 5% more often and depending of your damage you may deal a rather high percentage extra hurt out. 5% more to hit means little with the at-will powers, if you miss you can just use it again, but encounter and daily powers are one-shotters. If they miss they are wasted.

In 3.X such one-shotters were either automatic hit or against a touch AC (and therefore a high chance of hitting). In 4e they are incorporated in all classes. You'll really hate yourself after missing with your daily power that could have turned the entire fight around.


----------



## mattdm (Jun 17, 2008)

The Sword 88 said:
			
		

> I know this is a specific case but for a wizard it seems you should always have a 20 if possible, 18 if not in your INT as it is the only thing adding to your hit and dmg at first and contributes to your AC and REF, and helps you with your rituals.  CON and WIS are the only other stats that are moderately useful and starting with a 13 in those and 10's in the others seems fine.




If you want to be the most über-awesome wizard, you're gonna need to start with at least a 12 in Cha, or else plan to put your 4th and 8th level plusses there (which seems wasteful). And I bet we'll see more feats along those lines in the future.


----------



## FadedC (Jun 17, 2008)

Branduil said:
			
		

> It's not really a question of viable vs. not-viable. The question is, is an 18 in your primary stat more valuable than a more even distribution? I would say, the vast majority of the time, the 18 will prove to more valuable in the long run.




It probably depends on your class. The most important thing you are gaining from 2 stat points is +1 to hit. Hit bonuses are rare and hard to come by. Damage is nice too, but many things boost damage. And defences are not a reason to go for an 18, because you can get more defences by spreading your points.

Defence bonuses and save penalties are also hard to come by, and some feats that give you bonuses to hit, damage and AC require stats that are outside your primary stat. If you look at feats you may note cases where you get a much larger long term benefit by spreading your stats out a bit more. And keep in mind that +1 to hit only makes a difference in one roll out of 20.

In some cases it may also be worth playing a race who doesn't get a bump to your main stat if that race has an ability that is strong enough to balance it out. For example a regular elf can potentially be strong at any class because of elven accuracy. Unless the fight is really long you will get more benefit from elven accuracy then from +1 to hit.


----------



## Branduil (Jun 17, 2008)

Bialaska said:
			
		

> I think the major issue regarding having an 18 or a 16 is the fact that you lack a lot of the buffing that were in 3.5, which means that your chance to hit is much lower. Not only that, you also deal more damage with a higher score. So you hit 5% more often and depending of your damage you may deal a rather high percentage extra hurt out. 5% more to hit means little with the at-will powers, if you miss you can just use it again, but encounter and daily powers are one-shotters. If they miss they are wasted.
> 
> In 3.X such one-shotters were either automatic hit or against a touch AC (and therefore a high chance of hitting). In 4e they are incorporated in all classes. You'll really hate yourself after missing with your daily power that could have turned the entire fight around.



Yeah, that's the thing that really solidified my view on the importance of having a high primary stat. Heck, if you really needed to hit in 3.x, you just cast True Strike on yourself beforehand. There's nothing like that in 4e, in most cases you just have to rely on the naked roll. The most you can get is something like the Elven re-roll ability.


----------



## Clawhound (Jun 17, 2008)

I look at it this way: there is opportunity, and there is payoff.

Let's say that I have a Strength power that lets me shift 1+[Int mod] opponents.

If I take a 5% chance less to hit (I choose Str 16), I can increase the payoff of the power 25-33% (by choosing a higher Int). Is that worth it? Often enough, it is.

I want my daily powers to hit. I also want my encounter powers to have a maximum effect. Which is more important? I believe that it is far better to support your at-will and encounter powers over your dailies. That's where you get your payback.

When I made my warlord, I noted that many powers affected a secondary ability's worth of opponents. Is that 5% chance to  hit a fair tradeoff to shift an additional one or two opponents? 

In 4e, payload means far more than damage.


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 17, 2008)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Hellfire Blood is an explicit fix. Tiefling Warlocks are all viable, thanks to that specific feat.



But it should not require a feat to make a racial choice viable. 



			
				Nifft said:
			
		

> Then we're discussing different things: my position is that you need an 18 in your primary attack stat *after* racial modifiers.



Nonsense. Having an 18 in your primary attack stat even after racial modifiers is a boon but is by no means a necessity, exceptions or otherwise.


----------



## Bialaska (Jun 17, 2008)

One thing that I dislike about 4e is the fact that you can easily dump attributes. In 3.5 you were limited in which stats you could completely ignore. Intelligence does not give skills anymore. And there are two stats that give bonuses to the various defenses. In 3.5 I preferred having 14, 14, 13, 13, 12, 10 or some similar array. It hurt too much to give up some attributes completely. In 4e it's expected.


----------



## Mengu (Jun 17, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> However, there's a benefit to odd stats in 4e.




I agree, and that's a reason to pay attention to where you're putting that 13. For instance if I'm building an Human Paladin, I might go for the following stats (using array 16/14/14/13/10/8):

Str 14, Con 13, Dex 10, Int 8, Wis 14, Cha 18

At 4th level, I would sink points into Con and Cha, and at 8th, I'd be bumping Wis and Cha. At 11th my Wisdom would even out, but my Con would be odd (and be where it needs to be for Plate specialization). At 14th, I'd even out Con again while increasing Cha, and so on. One well placed odd stat is all you need, in order to stagger your stat advancement.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 17, 2008)

Aldarc said:
			
		

> But it should not require a feat to make a racial choice viable.



 "Should"? That and $5 will get you a frappuccino.

 -- N


----------



## Arbitrary (Jun 17, 2008)

The broader, simple picture - 

Choose three stats to emphasize that cover all three defenses, one of which is the primary attack stat of your class and make them all as large as the point buy allows.  Play a race that boosts the chosen stats.

I think any Str based character is at an inherent disadvantage by also having to worry about sacrificing a defense (ick) or Con (double ick).


----------



## DylanCB (Jun 17, 2008)

Never? Meh, while my Dragonborn Warlord has an 18 in strength using the standard array, I'm not convinced. Is it really necessary? I'm not seeing the game being harder if you don't. Enemies will die less, but if your getting more HP or dodging attacks better with more balanced stats, I think it balances out. I'll have to play more.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 17, 2008)

Arbitrary said:
			
		

> I think any Str based character is at an inherent disadvantage by also having to worry about sacrificing a defense (ick) or Con (double ick).



 Pretty Paladins and Laser Clerics are in the same boat -- both types want both Cha and Wis.

This is also why the designers say they gave extra nice things to the Eladrin, to balance out the fact that both their ability boosts fall under the same defense.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Regicide (Jun 17, 2008)

Aldarc said:
			
		

> Nonsense. Having an 18 in your primary attack stat even after racial modifiers is a boon but is by no means a necessity, exceptions or otherwise.




  It makes it easier on the DM if they don't have to gimp purchased adventures because your character can't hit things of appropriate level.


----------



## Zurai (Jun 17, 2008)

Nifft said:
			
		

> This is also why the designers say they gave extra nice things to the Eladrin, to balance out the fact that both their ability boosts fall under the same defense.



Now whether they actually _did_ is another thing entirely...


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 17, 2008)

Nifft said:
			
		

> "Should"? That and $5 will get you a frappuccino.



$5? That much? I don't know where you are getting your frappuccinos from, neither do I know where you are getting your conclusions. Requiring a feat to make a racial choice viable for a class is antithetical to the what we were told of the 4E design philosophy. So either that feat is required to make tiefling warlocks viable or those eighteens in the primary stat are nearly as necessary as you make them out to be.



			
				Regicide said:
			
		

> It makes it easier on the DM if they don't have to gimp purchased adventures because your character can't hit things of appropriate level.



Stop over-stating this. You do not have to gimp adventures as a DM nor does that +1 make that much of a difference. It would be much easier on the DM if the characters were gods fighting kobold minions, but characters can successfully fight monsters of their level without that 18 in their primary stat.


----------



## Spatula (Jun 17, 2008)

Clawhound said:
			
		

> I look at it this way: there is opportunity, and there is payoff.
> 
> Let's say that I have a Strength power that lets me shift 1+[Int mod] opponents.
> 
> ...



That payload (in most cases) does not happen if you do not hit, though.  You _need_ to hit in order to do stuff in combat.

Your example is incorrect, in any case - you are _not_ penalizing your secondary stat (INT in your example) to boost your primary (STR).  I mean, you could, but that's suboptimal and not neccessary.  You're taking points from the three-four stats that have no direct impact on your class abilities (DEX, WIS, possibly CON and/or CHA), in order to boost your primary stat (STR).


----------



## Cadfan (Jun 17, 2008)

Regicide- Argh.  I don't know what to say other than that you did all the math except the math that mattered (the advantage of +1 in addition to what you already put down, or since you optimized the heck out of your example, more properly the disadvantage of taking -1 off of the stats you laid out), and that if you had done the math that mattered, you'd see that all you accomplished was reaching the break even point where a +1 was of equal use in 3e as in 4e.

There's no "replacing" the +1 you could have gotten with a high strength score with a +1 from another source in 3e.  This is because the +1 from the other source is _already assumed to be part of the system._


----------



## Cadfan (Jun 17, 2008)

Regicide said:
			
		

> It makes it easier on the DM if they don't have to gimp purchased adventures because your character can't hit things of appropriate level.



You're being dramatic.  If an enemy has a defense of 12, and I have a +3, I hit on a 9.  If you have a +4, you hit on an 8.  The difference will not necessitate changing the adventure.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 17, 2008)

Zurai said:
			
		

> Now whether they actually _did_ is another thing entirely...



 I did word that carefully for a reason. 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Nifft (Jun 17, 2008)

Aldarc said:
			
		

> $5? That much? I don't know where you are getting your frappuccinos from



 Maybe I just tip well. I'm a generous guy. 







			
				Aldarc said:
			
		

> neither do I know where you are getting your conclusions. Requiring a feat to make a racial choice viable for a class is antithetical to the what we were told of the 4E design philosophy.



 Well, you can trust what you recall of the designer's discussions regarding their claims to a particular philosophy, or you can go look at the numbers.

My conclusions come from playing the game, crunching some numbers myself, and work in the CharOpt forum (both the work of others and my own).

Cheers, -- N


----------



## rhm001 (Jun 17, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> Your example is incorrect, in any case - you are _not_ penalizing your secondary stat (INT in your example) to boost your primary (STR).  I mean, you could, but that's suboptimal and not neccessary.  You're taking points from the three-four stats that have no direct impact on your class abilities (DEX, WIS, possibly CON and/or CHA), in order to boost your primary stat (STR).




The question isn't how much you penalize the secondary stat; it's what you do with it in relation to the tertiary (usually the same as the alternative primary) stat, which DOES have a direct impact. He mentioned Warlord, I believe; your example assumes it's safe to minimize Charisma. While you can take all Intelligence-based or neutral attacks, that does cost you a few nice Encounter options and, more importantly, hurts a lot of your healing abilities. Other classes have similar situations where even powers using primary and secondary stats will get additional benefits from the other stat you've decided to dump. 

There should always be 2 stats you can afford to dump, and two that will be the most important to your build, but the real question is what you do with those other two that are in the middle.


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 17, 2008)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Maybe I just tip well. I'm a generous guy.  Well, you can trust what you recall of the designer's discussions regarding their claims to a particular philosophy, or you can go look at the numbers.
> 
> My conclusions come from playing the game, crunching some numbers myself, and work in the CharOpt forum (both the work of others and my own).
> 
> Cheers, -- N



You may have done the numbers, but I am skeptical of your interpretation of the numbers. That 18 is only necessary for min/maxers. Losing that +1 does not cripple that character in combat to the extent to which you say that it does. 

Cheers, -- A


----------



## Nifft (Jun 17, 2008)

Aldarc said:
			
		

> You may have done the numbers, but I am skeptical of your interpretation of the numbers. That 18 is only necessary for min/maxers. Losing that +1 does not cripple that character in combat to the extent to which you say that it does.



 Could you remind me precisely to what extent I said it crippled a character?

As long as you agree that a character would be *less strong* (or *sub-optimal*) without an 18 in his primary attack stat*, we're at least on the same page conceptually.

Cheers, -- N

* ... barring specific exceptional cases, of course.


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 17, 2008)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Could you remind me precisely to what extent I said it crippled a character?
> 
> As long as you agree that a character would be *less strong* (or *sub-optimal*) without an 18 in his primary attack stat*, we're at least on the same page conceptually.
> 
> ...



I am honestly not sure now why you would need to number crunch the obvious that a higher number is better than a lower one, which should go without saying, but the question is to what extent that 18 necessary for combat even including those that are not exceptional cases?


----------



## Blackbrrd (Jun 17, 2008)

I agree that not having an 18 in your main stat is suboptimal.

You can pretty much stat dump con (give it a 10) if you have high str, but it will cost you two feats (toughness and extra healing feat).

For instance you can have a dwarven fighter with 18str, 15con&wis and 10,10,8 in the rest of the stats. Or a dwarven cleric with the exact same stats. In other words: if you pick a race that boosts both your secondary stat and tertiary stat, you can buy that 18. It will cost you, but you only need to buy a 13 in the secondary/tertiary stat to get 15's.

I think they have perfected the point-buy btw. If you put a stat at 19 or 20 you are paying the price. 18 seems to be the perfect balance between actually hitting with your powers and having ok secondary and tertiary stats.


----------



## IanB (Jun 17, 2008)

I think a more useful direction for this thread to go would be identifying those 'specific exceptions' that achieve optimal status without going for a post-racial 18.

We know of the following from the thread so far:

tiefling warlock (infernal)
dwarf fighter

What else is out there that qualifies?


----------



## Stalker0 (Jun 17, 2008)

I definitely feel that there's a big cost to paying an 18 off the bat. I also feel that paying the points for a 16 is completely worth it, and doesn't hinder much at all.

So to me the question is this, is the 18 so worth it that only races that give +2 to your primary stat are worth playing?


----------



## Benly (Jun 17, 2008)

IanB said:
			
		

> I think a more useful direction for this thread to go would be identifying those 'specific exceptions' that achieve optimal status without going for a post-racial 18.
> 
> We know of the following from the thread so far:
> 
> ...




Badstat orb wizard (slightly lower Int to keep Wis high plus a little Cha for Spell Focus)


----------



## JohnSnow (Jun 17, 2008)

Branduil said:
			
		

> It's not really a question of viable vs. not-viable. The question is, is an 18 in your primary stat more valuable than a more even distribution? I would say, the vast majority of the time, the 18 will prove to more valuable in the long run.




Assuming you make it to the long run.

Sometimes, getting that 18 will cost you - dearly. To get it, you might have to dump a stat that you NEED in order to survive. 

The question isn't (or shouldn't be): "is the 18 attack stat character a good option." The question is whether the character without an 18 in his primary attack stat is viable.

Now, even Nifft has admitted that there are characters for whom it's true, like the Dwarf fighter. Racial abilities they get make the combination viable, even when the stat bonuses are less than totally favorable.

Let me pull out an example: a human ranger. We're told his primary stats are Strength, Dex and Wisdom. And obviously, with any character, Constitution makes a good choice (more hit points and healing surges). Our human can get a +2 benefit to any one attribute. Conventional wisdom says we either:

a) Focus on two-blade powers and make strength an 18, or;
b) Focus on archery powers and make dexterity an 18.

But is that the best choice? If we shoot for an 18, we end up with only 2 other attributes that are better than a 14. Some of the options:

18, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10 (default array and +2 human bonus)
18, 14, 14, 12, 11, 8
18, 15, 13, 12, 11, 8
18, 16, 12, 11, 11, 8
18, 16, 12, 10, 10, 10

There's no way to get a good strength, and dex, and wisdom this way and have anything left over for Con. Alternatively, if we shoot for a 17 or 16 as our high stat, we can pull off some interesting math...

17, 16, 13, 13, 10, 8
17, 15, 13, 13, 12, 8
17, 15, 14, 13, 10, 8
17, 14, 14, 14, 10, 8
16, 16, 14, 12, 11, 8
16, 16, 15, 11, 10, 8
16, 16, 14, 13, 10, 8
16, 15, 15, 13, 10, 8
16, 15, 14, 14, 10, 8

For someone wanting a balanced character, there's a lot of viable builds there. Like this one:

Gareth
*Human Ranger 1*
*Init:* +5 *Perception:* +7
*Defenses:* AC 18, Fort 14, Ref 15, Will 13
*Hit Points:* 30 *Bloodied:* 15
*Healing Surges:* 7 (7)
*Attacks:*
 (Standard, At-will) Longsword +5/1d10 +2
 (Standard, At-will) Longbow +5/1d10 + 3
*Twin Strike* (Standard, At-will)
 Longsword +5/1d10, two attacks
*Twin Strike* (Standard, At-will)
 Longbow +5/1d10, two attacks
*Hit and Run * (Standard, At-will)
 Longsword +5/1d10 + 2, plus if you move in the same turn, leaving the first square does not provoke an OA from the target.
*Evasive Strike * (Standard, Encounter)
 Longsword +5/2d10 + 2, plus shift 3 squares before or after the attack, or;
 Longbow +5/2d10 + 3, plus shift 3 squares before or after the attack.
*Hunter's Bear Trap* (Standard, At-will), 
*Hit:* Longsword +5/2d10 + 2, or Longbow +5/2d10 + 3, and target is slowed and takes ongoing damage 5 (save ends both).
*Miss:* Half damage, and target is slowed until the end of your next turn.
*Feats:* Toughness, Quick Draw, Lethal Hunter.
*Skills:* Nature +7, Perception +7, Stealth +7, Athletics +6, Acrobatics +7.
*Class Features:* Hunter's Quarry, Two Blade Fighting Style, Prime Shot.
Str 15 (+2)
Con 13 (+1)
Dex 16 (+3)
Int 10 (+0)
Wis 15 (+2)
Cha 8 (-1)
*Gear:* Adventurer's Kit, Hide Armor, Longswords (2), Dagger, Longbow, Arrows.

How is this not a viable character? What does an 18 buy me? +1 to hit and damage? Thanks, but with a +5 to hit on all my attacks, I think I'll take my chances. Alternatively, I could give up a point each in Str and Wis (wouldn't lose any bonus) to get an 18 Dexterity. Then, my dex attacks would be much better, but my strength and wisdom would be worse. 

Yes, I admit it's better at Level 1, but those 15s mean Str and Wis can each be bumped to 16 sooner rather than later.

I guess I have a problem with tagging the character's entire "effectiveness" to how often he hits in combat (and moreover, how well he does that _at 1st-level_). I just think people are assigning an awful lot of value to a small to-hit bonus and deciding that anything else is therefore "sub-optimal."

Plenty of things matter. That extra healing surge from having a 12 or 13 Constitution instead of a 10 is huge. Alternatively, I could take that extra 2 points from cutting Wis and Str to 14 and give myself a 14 Con instead of an 18 Dex. Which is one _more_ healing surge.

That's occasionally going to come in much more handy than a measily +1 to hit and damage. IMO only, of course.

If it were all about the two-hit bonus, then all rangers should take two-blade style for the better attack bonus. Longswords give a proficiency bonus of +3, whereas longbows only give +2.


----------



## Lord Sessadore (Jun 17, 2008)

IanB said:
			
		

> I think a more useful direction for this thread to go would be identifying those 'specific exceptions' that achieve optimal status without going for a post-racial 18.
> 
> We know of the following from the thread so far:
> 
> ...



Dwarven battle cleric with dwarven weapon specialization should be in the same boat as the dwarven fighter.  I would imagine a dwarf paladin with the same feat would also be similar.


----------



## Spatula (Jun 17, 2008)

rhm001 said:
			
		

> The question isn't how much you penalize the secondary stat; it's what you do with it in relation to the tertiary (usually the same as the alternative primary) stat, which DOES have a direct impact.



Not at all.  Everyone has three "safe" dump stats, some have four (wizard only needs INT + mastery stat).  In some cases you can _also_ dump your teritary class stat, but you don't need to in order to pump up your primary.  And CON is semi-questionable as a dump stat because more HP and surges are always useful, but an average CON in 4e doesn't have the dramatic impact it has in 3e, so you can get away with it if you so choose.


----------



## Lord Sessadore (Jun 17, 2008)

I think a big sticking point in this thread is between those who are looking at flexible builds that are viable and those who are looking at optimal builds.  So perhaps the question is whether being optimal is valuable enough that it is more desirable than some flexibility and a sub-optimal but completely viable build.  

I don't expect that we'd ever come to a conclusive answer as to which of those two options is better.  It's a matter of preference - do you want to be the guy that is the very best at what he does, but not that great at anything else, or do you want to be the guy that is pretty darn good at what he does, and decent at most other things.  

If you want an optimized character, 18 is the way to go (but not buying a straight 18 - I mean a 16 with +2 from race), unless you pick an exceptional case, such as the dwarven fighter with dwarven weapon talent.  In my opinion, a 20 is too costly in most scenarios.  Some would disagree, and that's fine.  Getting that 18, though, requires that you select a race with a bonus to your primary stat, limiting your choices somewhat.  An 18 in your primary stat basically guarantees optimality offensively in combat.  The only question is whether you're willing to sacrifice the small dent to defense, or possible feat selection, or out-of-combat flexibility.  

If you don't mind having a totally optimized character, a 16 is just fine.  Either with a racial bonus or without, neither is that costly.  It gives you more flexibility in and out of combat, shores up some of your other potential weaknesses, and you shouldn't be that far behind the guy with the 18 in the offense department.  Yes, it is sub-optimal - but that doesn't mean it sucks.  I haven't done hard math to prove this, but I think that the system is designed to accommodate 16 in primary stats, meaning that you would be on par with design expectations.  

Assuming that the system is designed so that having a 16 in your primary stat will give you roughly a 50% chance to hit (or even 55% or 60%), then going with 16 won't really hurt you, and getting that 18 will only put you slightly ahead of the curve, but not far enough to make it necessary.

Just my 2 cents.  Take it or leave it, it's up to you.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jun 17, 2008)

Lord Sessadore said:
			
		

> An 18 in your primary stat basically guarantees optimality offensively in combat. The only question is whether you're willing to sacrifice the small dent to defense, or possible feat selection, or out-of-combat flexibility.




I see where you're coming from. The open question to my mind is whether offensive optimality defines what is "optimal?"

Personally, I think the answer is "no." The _best_ character, offensively, is not necessarily the most _optimal_ character. I realize this may fly in the face of the belief of the CharOp crowd, but that may be the crux of the disagreement here.



			
				Lord Sessadore said:
			
		

> If you don't mind (not) having a totally optimized character, a 16 is just fine.  Either with a racial bonus or without, neither is that costly.  It gives you more flexibility in and out of combat, *shores up some of your other potential weaknesses,* and you shouldn't be that far behind the guy with the 18 in the offense department.  Yes, it is sub-optimal - but that doesn't mean it sucks.




I assume you meant to imply people who didn't have a totally optimized character. 

The thing is those "other potential weaknesses" are an inherent part of your so-called "optimal" character. The 20 INT wizard may be a spellcasting genius who almost always hits with his spells, but if he's got low Fort and reflex defenses, or especially low hit points, he's got some very serious, and _exploitable_ vulnerability. Compare and contrast that with the guy who gave up those couple points in order to be more durable, and I think which one is "optimal" is up for debate.

In other words, it's my feeling that "optimal" is pretty situational. I might be able to accept that the CharOp crowd uses it to mean strictly "offensive capability," but that doesn't mean I have to agree they're right.

I think for optimal defense, you should have _at least_ a +1 stat boost  (and +2 would be better) to each of your defense scores. And given the stat splits, that usually means we're talking about investing in a third stat, not a fourth. For almost every class, there's usually a side benefit to putting some resources into that third stat.

The exceptions are Paladins and clerics, whose powers rely on _both_ Will stats, but benefit little (aside from the ref bonus) from either intelligence or dexterity; and fighters, who have a fairly strong incentive to take _both_ Fort stats, but get little benefit from either charisma or wisdom.

So, fighters will (no doubt) often have a weak will defense whereas clerics and paladins will probably have a weak reflex defense.

Similarly, I think the best chance when targeting a wizard will be to attack his fortitude defense. But that's just a guess.


----------



## Mengu (Jun 17, 2008)

IanB said:
			
		

> I think a more useful direction for this thread to go would be identifying those 'specific exceptions' that achieve optimal status without going for a post-racial 18.




I'm not sure how you want to define optimal status. I mean a human can always have an 18 in his primary stat. But if you want to play a charisma based paladin, but are worried about healing in your party since the only other healer in your 6-player party is a tactical Warlord, you might go for a stat distribution like:

Str 14, Con 13, Dex 10, Int 8, Wis 16, Cha 16.

This gives you 3 lay on hands a day, is nicely supplemented by Healing Hands and Durable, and is probably optimal for what you want to play. Is it the best human paladin ever? Probably not, but in its context, and to suit the party needs, it's the best it can be.


----------



## Cadfan (Jun 18, 2008)

Tiefling Warlock
Dwarf Fighter (con and wis secondary)
Elf Fighter (dex and wis secondary)
Str/Wis cleric
Str/Cha paladin
Con/Cha Star Pact Warlock
Tiefling Rogue (Bloodhunt makes up the difference, and you're maneuverable enough to use it)

There are probably others.  A lot of the two attack stat classes can be run with 17/17 without major investment problems.  See Half Elf Star Pact Warlock for reference.  It can also be fun to run a 17/16 build with a two attack stat class, because then you get a noticeable benefit every stat increase, instead of only caring about every other stat increase.

There are really only a few actually bad combinations, because no matter what any clever person tries to tell you, hitting on a 10+ instead of a 9+ does not count as having a crappy character.


----------



## daddystabz (Jun 18, 2008)

I am planning to play a Dragonborn Paladin.  Thus, you all can see my dilemma.  He will need good scores in Str, Con, Cha, and Wis!!!!

Paladin is in my opinion the most difficult class to stat properly.  I have been of 2 minds about this.

First I was going to stat him as:

Str: 18 (+ 4), Con: 12 (+ 1), Dex: 12 (+ 1), Int 8 (- 1), Wis: 13 (+ 1), Cha: 16 (+ 3)

This would optimize his Str but his Con would suffer a bit, hurting his racial bonuses some and his Wis/Cha would be decent.


The problem is that Paladins have many abilities that run from Cha and Wis and Dragonborn chars need good Con to take advantage of racial features and for healing surges, etc.

So I started looking at this build:

Str: 16 (+ 3), Con: 14 (+2), Dex: 12 (+1), Int: 8 (- 1), Wis: 14 (+ 2), Cha: 16 (+ 3)


What build do you think is best for a Dragonborn Paladin to be the best defender I can be and to be as effective as possible overall?


----------



## Mengu (Jun 18, 2008)

daddystabz said:
			
		

> What build do you think is best for a Dragonborn Paladin to be the best defender I can be and to be as effective as possible overall?




I'd say don't go for both Strength and Charisma. Pick one or the other. For the defender build, I'd likely go with something like:

Str 15, Con 14, Dex 10, Int 8, Wis 14, Cha 18

Switch Cha and Str if you want the avenger build.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Jun 18, 2008)

I don't think 18 is absolutely necessary unless you're considering the character from a single-stat optimization perspective.  The net +1 makes a difference, but a 5% or less difference.

At the same time, don't be afraid to put lower stats in other areas, either.  You don't have to "cover your bases" in everything.  I'd rather get +1 to a stat that I will be rolling dice for all the time, than have +1 in a stat that is strictly a static defense.  And these are other ways to compensate for some stats (albeit not as many as there were in 3E).  For example, from a defensive perspective, a heavy shield is equal to 4 points of Dex or Int.

And I think the way the game is constructed, most characters have to make some hard ability tradeoffs.  Even the fighter, who seems fairly straightforward -- if you want to use the heaviest armor, you need a lot of Con; but if you want to specialize in a shield or sword, you want Dex.  Try being a sword fighter in plate ... you need high Str, Dex, and Con (just to qualify for the feats) ... so you'll go crazy trying to max all of them (though I don't buy Wis as a fighter secondary stat ... it really only matters if you want Polearm Gamble.  Most opponents should be smart enough not to trigger movement-based opportunity attacks in the fighter's range, so that Wis bonus to OAs won't come up much.  Better to shift and eat a melee basic that doesn't stop your move than to outright move, get attacked with a bonus, and have that movement stopped.)


----------



## Spatula (Jun 18, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> The thing is those "other potential weaknesses" are an inherent part of your so-called "optimal" character. The 20 INT wizard may be a spellcasting genius who almost always hits with his spells, but if he's got low Fort and reflex defenses, or especially low hit points, he's got some very serious, and _exploitable_ vulnerability.



How does a 20 INT wizard have a low Reflex defense?


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jun 18, 2008)

From a math standpoint, I don't think it's a big deal between 16 and 18, or even 16 and 20.

Assume in a combat I make 20 attack rolls - a number which is excessive, in my limited experience playing 4E.  Realistically, in the longest battle I think I made 15.  But assume I make 20.

Between that 16 and that 18, based on the average numbers, I've only missed one attack I should have hit, out of twenty attempts.  Assuming a combat runs only ten rounds, that means I'm not even seeing the effect of that +1 every battle.  Even between 16 and 20, that's just two attacks.

Now, I realize that there are differing opinions.  However, personally I just can't see a +1 as anything significant in the long run.  I certainly don't see it as the absolute gimping that some people here seem to.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jun 18, 2008)

I think this debate is primarily being driven by confusion on what optimal means. So far it seems to mean "best at making use of his class powers that require attack rolls".

Often that also means that you're best at fulfilling your classes role. 

Usually it means that you'll be slightly worse at fulfilling other roles. The controller gets hit harder and has less hitpoints, and goes later in the round. The striker misses with OAs. The defender is easy to hit with non-ac attacks, and is surprised almost every time (meaning he doesn't fulfill his role for the first round of combat).

Usually there's out-of-combat penalties too. Low charisma severely limits contribution to social challenges etc.

So - optimal is probably not the word to be using unless we identify the scenarios he is optimal for. And if we're going to set the scenario as "playing the game", then optimal has to take a lot more into account than "he hits a lot".


----------



## JohnSnow (Jun 18, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> How does a 20 INT wizard have a low Reflex defense?




He's playing 3e.  

Or I was. In my head.

The 20 INT _Fourth Edition_ Wizard maybe has low Fort and Will defenses, rather than Fort and Ref.

Probably neither. A perfectly viable 20 INT wizard build is the following:

Eladrin Wizard
Str 8 (-1)
Con 12 (+1)
Dex 13 (+1)
Int 20 (+5)
Wis 13 (+1)
Cha 10 (+0)

He's got a +5 Int bonus. Alternatively, for a tiefling, you could drop dex to 11 and boost charisma to 10. Or just swap Str and Cha. And he's equally viable with any implement.

Now, is the 20 Int worth it? I don't know. Hard to say. That's 4 points that could have been used to improve BOTH dexterity and wisdom to 14 (+2). Or you could juggle things a little and get a 14 Constitution.

Now, that 14 Dex may seem redundant, since our wizard uses Int to attack, but for a Wand of Accuracy user, that's an extra +2 to hit once per encounter when you _really_ need it. And that's nothing to sneeze at.


----------



## Diirk (Jun 18, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Now, is the 20 Int worth it? I don't know. Hard to say. That's 4 points that could have been used to improve BOTH dexterity and wisdom to 14 (+2). Or you could juggle things a little and get a 14 Constitution.
> 
> Now, that 14 Dex may seem redundant, since our wizard uses Int to attack, but for a Wand of Accuracy user, that's an extra +2 to hit once per encounter when you _really_ need it. And that's nothing to sneeze at.




Right, but 20 int 13 dex vs 18 int 14 dex... while your wand may give you +2 to hit once per encounter instead of +1, you're also losing out on +1 hit/damage on EVERY attack, as well as losing 1 reflex defense and AC. Totally not worth it.


----------



## Regicide (Jun 18, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> There's no "replacing" the +1 you could have gotten with a high strength score with a +1 from another source in 3e.  This is because the +1 from the other source is _already assumed to be part of the system._




  You should reread my post, you've completely missed what I said.  The fact that a suboptimal character without outside buffs who could easily have more +s was hitting all on 2+ except the last roll completely repudiates your point.

  3.5E is based on the LAST swing having about as much chance landing as the FIRST swing does in 4E.  The "curve" you keep trying to imagine as existing, doesn't.  You can't compare a stat score in 3E to 4E because they're different.

  In a challenging fight in 4E if someone was naive enough, like a first time player, to take a score of 12 they could easily be in the position of needing a 17 to 20 to hit and being nearly useless vs. someone with a 20 in a stat needing 13+ and while not hitting often, might actually pull through.

  In 3E you can get by with a 12 STR.  Sure it's better to have more, but you're not going to be making the character next to useless in a tough fight.


----------



## toxicspirit (Jun 18, 2008)

This is an interesting thread.

Speaking of the viability of characters with a stat of 20, would you think this would qualify, or does it have any glaring weaknesses that I haven't noticed?

*Elven Archer Ranger*
Str: 10
Con: 11
Dex: 20
Int: 8
Wis: 16
Cha: 10


----------



## Nifft (Jun 18, 2008)

Aldarc said:
			
		

> I am honestly not sure now why you would need to number crunch the obvious that a higher number is better than a lower one, which should go without saying, but the question is to what extent that 18 necessary for combat even including those that are not exceptional cases?



 Well, you may notice how I'm *not* recommending a 20 in your attack stat? That's because it's almost always too expensive. It is a +1 to attack and damage, but the cost in terms of other stats is too high.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Torchlyte (Jun 18, 2008)

I'm a fan of starting with odd numbers. Observe:

Dragonborn Strength Paladin
Str: 17 19
Con: 11
Dex: 10
Int: 10
Wis: 14 16
Cha: 14

Boost Str and Wis each level, then boost Con and Wis at level 28.

Dragonborn Strength Paladin
Str: 18 20
Con: 11
Dex: 10
Int: 10
Wis: 14 16
Cha: 10

So for +1 Str Mod you're giving up +1 Con and +2 Cha. The Paladin gets a lot of perks from Cha...


----------



## Family (Jun 18, 2008)

I have to agree, I just did up 6 optimized PC designed to work as a group...they all had a 20 (that included a racial bonus). And all but one of my playgroup has 18 or 20's too.

If I ever need to incapacitate them I plan to take most of them out with some poision darts (4 have a 10 for their fort defence) and then reflex attack the "tough guys" (who both have 10's for their reflex defence).

Waking up in a unknown cell can be fun at times.


----------



## Ahglock (Jun 18, 2008)

I'm not sure I'd go for a 18 in most cases.  I wont deny its probably more effective, but in most case when I make a character I prefer thematically a more even spread.  And I do not think the hit in effectiveness will be particularly large.

  For wizards, I'd want a 20.  This goes back to 1st edition where if I ever rolled a 18, I was like woot a wizard.  I don't know why but the max spell level limit tied to int always kept me away if my int was not 18.  Now its gone, but if I were to play a wizard instead of GM I'd still want max int.

My preferred Wizard stats before racial mods:

Str 8
Dex 10
Con 10
Int 18
Wis 13
chr 13

Dropping chr to 12 so the wizard would have a 13 when it hits the paragon tier is probably "better".  But I don't like it.

Edit to add in the case of a Tiefling, I'd drop the chr to 10 or 11 and boost con to 12 or 13.  You would still get spell focus, and would be a bit healthier.

Double edit: Eladrin I would drop the chr to 12, raise the dex to 11, modified 13 and by th epic tief have a 15 dex for the cool dex feats.


----------



## Ahglock (Jun 18, 2008)

toxicspirit said:
			
		

> This is an interesting thread.
> 
> Speaking of the viability of characters with a stat of 20, would you think this would qualify, or does it have any glaring weaknesses that I haven't noticed?
> 
> ...




It hurts my soul to see a 8 Int ranger/archer, but yeah it is probably the best dump stat for the archer build.    And yeah, that would likely whoop butt.


----------



## daddystabz (Jun 18, 2008)

It seems to me that for a Dragonborn Paladin stats of 

Str 16* (+3), Con 14 (+2), Dex 12 (+1), Int 8 (-1) , Wis 14 (+2), Cha 16* (+3)


seem to be pretty optimized to take advantage of all this race/class combo has to offer.  It gives good Str, Wis, Cha, and Con, which are all important for this race/class combo.  An 18 Str or Cha Paladin seems more to be a 1 trick pony to me.


----------



## Regicide (Jun 18, 2008)

daddystabz said:
			
		

> seem to be pretty optimized to take advantage of all this race/class combo has to offer.  It gives good Str, Wis, Cha, and Con, which are all important for this race/class combo.  An 18 Str or Cha Paladin seems more to be a 1 trick pony to me.




  I haven't looked too closely at paladin but it seems like they get a lot of nice effects of WIS.  I'd go all points to CHR then anything else into WIS and to heck with everything else.

  Although were I to make a paladin, mine would be screaming "Allah akbar" and smiting all the peasants and people that don't believe in his god, much as the rules describe they do.  Man I love the new paladins, they're real butchers, have a god, got a reason to kill, alll riiiiiight.


----------



## wiser (Jun 18, 2008)

*meh*

i play a half elf cleric with 16 wis and 16 char.  he is not uber or min maxed, but he does pretty well.
+3 to spell attacks and healing is almost as good as +4 
so far i have been able to keep the party alive just as well as if i had taken an 18 is wisdom and neglected some of my other stats, which is something i really didnt want to do because;
Str 10 - I assumed i was going to have to hit something with my mace eventually, and i didnt want to have to RP a weakling
con 14 - hp, enough said.
dex 13 - the buff to initaitive is nice
int 11 - again i could have made this a dump but i didnt want to RP an idiot
wis 16 - a decent stat,  +3 to spell attacks.  what more do you need
char 16 - good for converting the locals.

I know some min maxers out there are going to say that ill be stuck on a +3 untill lvl 8 (when i buff wis and cha up to 18) and that everyone else will have +5s to their main stat but im really not fussed about that.  I think a well ballanced character, that is fun to RP is more important than the +5.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Jun 18, 2008)

The funny thing about this is that the one edition this was NOT true in was 3rd edition.

As Nifft argues, you could gain attack bonuses from a lot of sources in 3rd edition that enabled you to make up for the attack deficit vis a vis the 18 starting stat guy. (A few that Nifft forgot to mention--stacking attack bonuses and larger attack bonuses. For instance, 3rd edition charging is +2 not +1 and a prone, stunned, flanked, and tanglefoot bagged foe nets you +8 to hit with a -2 to the armor class of the foe (maybe +11 if you manage to jump onto a table as a part of your charge to gain +2 for charging and +1 for higher ground); in 4th edition, there is no tanglefoot bag and your bonus to hit a stunned, prone, and flanked foe is still +2 for non-stacking combat advantage). In addition, the math worked differently as melee and ranged attacks at least were expected to hit most of the time as you increased in level. The difference between miss on a 1 and miss on a 1 is not that significant. Now, it's not always a miss on a 1 situation in 3.x but for characters who are focused on physical combat, it often is. And even when it's not, 80% and 85% are both pretty likely to hit. On the other hand, when we're playing in the 40-60% range, you have to scrabble for every 5% increment you can get.

You also could much more easily take advantage of multiclassing to benefit from different stats. And, perhaps most importantly, it was quite possible to make an effective character who would only very rarely roll an attack. If he cleric who casts recitation in the first round of combat, cure moderate wounds in the second, and searing light in the third round of combat doesn't have a good DC on his spells, who cares? Nothing he does is affected by his primary stat (except spells per day). Likewise, a wizard could happily make do with magic missile, haste, displacement, solid fog, and freezing fog, or a druid could stick to summon nature's ally spells. There are a lot of character classes and concepts in 3rd edition that work just fine with a starting 15 in the primary stat and don't improve too much by increasing that. From what I can tell thus far, 4th edition (by design) does not have similar options. Your character should be rolling an attack roll every round.



			
				mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> If you are a min/maxer yes you should have 18+ in your primary ability score.
> 
> Same as every edition.
> 
> But 4E is the first edition that guarantees an 18 as the standard.


----------



## Mr. Wilson (Jun 18, 2008)

Personally, unless I'm forced into taking standard array, or if we're rolling, I'm taking 16/16/13/11/10/8 point buy every time with one exception.

1.) Archer ranger, where I can dump 3 stats (Int, Str, Cha).

There's something to be said for a Wizard dumping three stats as well to get a 20, but I'm still unsure on the math (and obviously, the wand wizard wouldn't do that.)


----------



## toxicspirit (Jun 18, 2008)

Ahglock said:
			
		

> It hurts my soul to see a 8 Int ranger/archer, but yeah it is probably the best dump stat for the archer build.    And yeah, that would likely whoop butt.



Could probably dump the 8 into Charisma instead of Intelligence. I keep switching back and forth between the two.


----------



## mlooney (Jun 18, 2008)

Reading this whole thread reminds me of why I don't use point buy or arrays in my game.  4d6, highest three, aka Method 3 in 4th ed.

Been using it for 33 years.


----------



## Ahglock (Jun 18, 2008)

mlooney said:
			
		

> Reading this whole thread reminds me of why I don't use point buy or arrays in my game.  4d6, highest three, aka Method 3 in 4th ed.
> 
> Been using it for 33 years.




Yes, the price you pay for stat balance between the players is a disturbing amount of uniformity.  For some it is worth the cost. I usually give the players a wide range of options that statistically work out to being equal on average, with rolling being one of the options.  Almost all of them roll.


----------



## AntiPaladin (Jun 18, 2008)

I rolled for most of my 3E campaigns, but I was never really happy with the result.  Call me a jealous person but I always nursed a sense of resentment when I played a character with 15s in a party with others that had an 18.  Furthermore, rolling HP was one of the most exciting and harrowing parts of the game but I'm glad it's gone.  Watching the crestfallen look on a player's face when he sees a 1 on the HP die is something I never want to see again.  It could literally break a character and that was bogus.

I'm glad that point buy is the new gold standard (well I guess it is just one of three options in the rules, but I imagine it will be the most popular).


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Jun 18, 2008)

My human paladin has:

str 16, con 12, dex 14, int 8, wis 14, cha 14.

Compensated for lower hit/dam & hps by spending the feats on weapon focus(heavy blades) and toughness. At level 2 he further took weapon prof. (bastard sword).

AC 21, Fort 16, Ref 17, Will 15. HPs 38. Base attack +7, 1d10+4.

Good all round character that'll qualify for all the heavy blade feats I want. Won't get plate spec until level 24 though...

I don't think the lack of an 18 is so painful. Slightly noticeable especially against the stat 20 characters, but then they have their share of regrets too.


----------



## jtrowell (Jun 18, 2008)

As a paladin you already have plate armor on level 1 for free, you don't need the 15 con


----------



## toxicspirit (Jun 18, 2008)

True, but I think he was referring to the Plate Specialization feat, not the basic proficiency feat.


----------



## Blackbrrd (Jun 18, 2008)

daddystabz said:
			
		

> I am planning to play a Dragonborn Paladin.  Thus, you all can see my dilemma.  He will need good scores in Str, Con, Cha, and Wis!!!!
> 
> Paladin is in my opinion the most difficult class to stat properly.  I have been of 2 minds about this.
> 
> ...




You need con for hp and healing surges. Fortitude is covered by your strength.

You can get 5/10/15 hp from toughness
You can get 2 extra healing surges from a feat

Oki, bad example for a dragonborn, but that would be the generic solution.

The solution for a dragonborn paladin is to either go for str OR cha. You don't really need both stats. Since you want a high con anyway, I would go for cha, wis, con (in that order).


----------



## daddystabz (Jun 18, 2008)

Do you think these Dargonborn Paladin stats would be better overall?

Str 15, Con 14, Dex 10, Int 8, Wis 14, Cha 18

I would suffer a bit on Opportunity Attacks though with having a lower Str but I think the higher Cha and Wis would more than pay off.


----------



## AllisterH (Jun 18, 2008)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> The funny thing about this is that the one edition this was NOT true in was 3rd edition.
> 
> As Nifft argues, you could gain attack bonuses from a lot of sources in 3rd edition that enabled you to make up for the attack deficit vis a vis the 18 starting stat guy. (A few that Nifft forgot to mention--stacking attack bonuses and larger attack bonuses. For instance, 3rd edition charging is +2 not +1 and a prone, stunned, flanked, and tanglefoot bagged foe nets you +8 to hit with a -2 to the armor class of the foe (maybe +11 if you manage to jump onto a table as a part of your charge to gain +2 for charging and +1 for higher ground); in 4th edition, there is no tanglefoot bag and your bonus to hit a stunned, prone, and flanked foe is still +2 for non-stacking combat advantage). In addition, the math worked differently as melee and ranged attacks at least were expected to hit most of the time as you increased in level. The difference between miss on a 1 and miss on a 1 is not that significant. Now, it's not always a miss on a 1 situation in 3.x but for characters who are focused on physical combat, it often is. And even when it's not, 80% and 85% are both pretty likely to hit. On the other hand, when we're playing in the 40-60% range, you have to scrabble for every 5% increment you can get.
> 
> .




Good analysis.

Only part where I disagree though is that this was possible at FIRST level. All those beanies and bonuses kicked in at levels higher than 5 effectively IMO.

As you pointed out, there were many ways to get a bonus however thus only your LAST attack was in doubt.

At levels 1-5 though, your last attack WAS your first attack thus you couldn't dump your prime stat.

If you were playing a one-shot game at level 21, you could start with a 12 STR and be assured that at least your first two attacks would miss only on a 1 but at level 1?

Playing a 12 STR fighter? No chance really.

Same goes for the wizard. At level 21, you can pick and choose spells that dont depend on a DC but again, at levels 1-5?

Yeah, that ain't happening.


----------



## Budalic (Jun 18, 2008)

*Elven issues*

So, you're telling me that elves aren't good TWF rangers?

What about 17, 14, 14, 10, 10, 8 array?

Str 17, dex 16, con 10, int 10, wis 16, cha 8?

I'd say it's an excellent build.


----------



## evilbob (Jun 18, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> I guess I have a problem with tagging the character's entire "effectiveness" to how often he hits in combat... I just think people are assigning an awful lot of value to a small to-hit bonus and deciding that anything else is therefore "sub-optimal."



I think this is because (pretty much) all powers are attacks and do damage.  An extra +1 is something that is going to affect your entire game up to level 30 because - as some have said - there is no way to "catch up."  Starting stats set the maximum for your final stat.

Taking an 18 +2 = 20 at the beginning of the game is a tough choice because you will give up on a lot.  But you will always be more effective with your powers - which are now pretty much the point of the game - than anyone else.  Whether or not this is "optimized" depends on the style of the game.


----------



## rhm001 (Jun 18, 2008)

Everyone is attaching a great deal of import to hitting in 4e. That assumes most of the powers actually require you to hit. For fighters (not defenders, since this does not apply to paladins) and strikers, that's true. But for everyone else---the paladin, leaders, and controllers---at least half of the powers you can choose include an "Effect," often the main feature of the power. Note that it's not the "Hit," requiring a hit, or the half as effective "Miss" alternative. "But wait," you may say, "most of the powers need a hit for decent damage!" And that is true. But if what you really care about is dealing damage yourself, play a striker (including the "part striker" fighter in this group), who will need the 18. Plenty of leader or paladin powers are about aiding or saving allies, and many of the wizard's powers are about controlling the battlefield and doing indirect damage.

If you want an optimal a non-striker with a 16, take "Effect" powers. Based on a quick leaf-through of the book, there will be 1 or 2 levels where that may not be an option, but, as has been said above, the need for the 18 is based on the (much?) higher AC's you'll run into every few battles. Use those rare (for you) "Hit" focused powers in the other battles, unless the result is decent even on a miss.


----------



## Arbitrary (Jun 18, 2008)

You can still distribute magic items in such a way as help someone "catch up."  It isn't nearly as impressive as 3rd and the +6 stat items but something as simple as who gets first crack at an enhancement bonus can set a character right back on track.


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 18, 2008)

rhm001 said:
			
		

> Everyone is attaching a great deal of import to hitting in 4e. That assumes most of the powers actually require you to hit. For fighters (not defenders, since this does not apply to paladins) and strikers, that's true. But for everyone else---the paladin, leaders, and controllers---at least half of the powers you can choose include an "Effect," often the main feature of the power. Note that it's not the "Hit," requiring a hit, or the half as effective "Miss" alternative. "But wait," you may say, "most of the powers need a hit for decent damage!" And that is true. But if what you really care about is dealing damage yourself, play a striker (including the "part striker" fighter in this group), who will need the 18. Plenty of leader or paladin powers are about aiding or saving allies, and many of the wizard's powers are about controlling the battlefield and doing indirect damage.
> 
> If you want an optimal a non-striker with a 16, take "Effect" powers. Based on a quick leaf-through of the book, there will be 1 or 2 levels where that may not be an option, but, as has been said above, the need for the 18 is based on the (much?) higher AC's you'll run into every few battles. Use those rare (for you) "Hit" focused powers in the other battles, unless the result is decent even on a miss.



Agreed. And a number of the leaders' powers give a bonus + to hit for allies as an assumed supplement.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 18, 2008)

*Every little '+' helps*

It's true that attack bonuses are more critical than ever in 4e.  Most powers work only if you hit, and many work much better if you hit.  Utilities are about the only powers that don't require an attack roll, at all.  

In 3e, there were plenty of ways to boost your AB as you progressed - you could take feats, acquire items, boost your stats, and self-buff.  These myriad bonuses could all be kept more or less under your control - 'native' to the build, as it were.

4e isn't like that.  There are still lots of bonuses out there, but the more stackable ones are out of your 'control.'  Your allies can give you bonuses, and not just by flanking.  Feats, features, and powers that give stacking bonuses tend to be situational.  

Still, you can stack up a lot of bonuses.  Say your 'brutal scoundrel' rogue skimped and has only a 16 DEX so he could also afford a higher STR.  As a rogue with a dagger, he's still at +7 to hit at first level, +9 with combat advantage, and +2d6+STR with a sneak attack.  But, that's only the begining.  If he's human, he can use an Action Point (and the Action Surge Feat) when he throws down a dailly power, that's a +3.  If there's a tactical warlord in his party it's probably another +1.  If the Cleric just Righteous branded the victim, that's another +3 (if he's also not an optimal-18 kinda build).  Our first level rogue is striking with a +16 - his daily /is/ going to hit.   His at-wills may be hitting on an 11 instead of 10 when he hasn't got combat advantage, but that's a minor disapointement.  

To an extent, 3e was a game where encounters could be won or lost before initiative was rolled - based on the builds and pre-buffs the advesaries brought to the fight.  In 4e, what happens durring an encounter is aparently going to be as or more important than what decisions were made at chargen.


----------



## Spatula (Jun 18, 2008)

Hm, the talk of starting with a 17 has prompted the thought of a dwarven TWF ranger (screw stereotypes!):
STR 17  (17, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 array)
CON 14
DEX 14
INT 10
WIS 15
CHA 8
Using battleaxes and warhammers, and taking chainmail & scale armor proficiencies (since they don't slow the dwarf any further, allowing you to not have to worry about bumping DEX for AC).  You could dump DEX too, if you absolutely had to have an 18, but it's useful for Reflex and Initiative.  You basically end up with a pretty well-rounded TWF fighter.


----------



## Lord Zardoz (Jun 19, 2008)

Branduil said:
			
		

> I haven't crunched any numbers, but just looking at it logically, is there any reason to ever have less than at least an 18 in your primary stat? In most cases it seems the +1 to attack, +1 to damage, and +1 to one save far outweighs the more limited benefits of spreading your stats out. You might be slightly more survivable, but you'll hit less often, and if you hit less often, enemies die slower, allies get buffed less, etc.
> 
> So would it be correct to say the only time you should NOT put an 18 in your primary stat is if you're doing some weird multi-classing?




The best reason I could come up with would be Skill Challenges.  There have been plenty of threads commenting on the difficulty of completing a skill challenge, when run with the suggested DC's from page 42 of the DMG.  Whether you think the numbers given make the system broken or not is best left to another thread (ie:  I do not want to de-rail this thread).  But Skill challenges are tough, and there is not guarantee that you will be handed challenges that use your chosen primary stat.  Based on the chart on page 18 of the PHB, if you stack one primary stat, you will at best have +1 in two stats, and +0 or -1 in the rest.  That in turn leaves you as much less versatile in a skill challenge.

Now, if you consider that Rituals cost cash, and spell casters are not quite so 'swiss army knife' built, you may conclude that you will want to be as good as you can in a number of different skills that come up.

It might not be a persuasive arguement against pumping a single ability, but it is a valid one.

END COMMUNICATION


----------



## Afrodyte (Jun 19, 2008)

toxicspirit said:
			
		

> This is an interesting thread.
> 
> Speaking of the viability of characters with a stat of 20, would you think this would qualify, or does it have any glaring weaknesses that I haven't noticed?
> 
> ...




Your Fort save will be kind of weak.

I played around with a few random builds (basically rolled 2d8 of 2 different colors and used one for race and the other for class). I came up with a Dwarf Ranger. Naturally, we have a Two-Blade ranger because the bonuses from Dwarven Weapon Training are sweet in this case. I did his stats like this:

STR 17...Melee attack, Fortitutde, most of the Two-Blade ranger powers, and Athletics skill. A high STR also synergizes well with Dwarven Weapon Training due to the fact that battleaxes are one-handed weapons and the handaxe is a heavy thrown weapon.

CON 11 (13)...Mainly for HP and healing surges, and an increase later on would help more than one in INT or CHA.

DEX 15...Initiative, AC, Reflex, and ranged attack. With light armor and powers that aid ranged combat, I thought this one had to be next. Also, with a high DEX, this character can quickly pick up Two-Weapon Fighting and Two-Weapon Defense later on. Also, increasing to 16 at later levels would really help.

INT 10...Toss-up between INT and CHA. These were the 2 stats I would rather not spend points on considering the benefits of prioritizing other stats. Two birds, one stone, and such.

WIS 12 (14)...Will, several ranger powers, Perception skill, Dungeoneering skill, and Nature skill.

CHA 8...Toss-up between CHA and INT.


----------



## toxicspirit (Jun 19, 2008)

Afrodyte said:
			
		

> Your Fort save will be kind of weak.



Of course, that's the one big downfall. But there does have to be one, otherwise the build (not necessarily in that order) would be kind of a no-brainer for most classes.

It is basically trading +2 to Fortitude saves and +4 Hit Points for the extra +1 to AC, to-hit rolls, Reflex saves, and to most other archer-ranger-related abilities and skills. To me, although it is a tough call, it seems to be worth the trade off.


----------



## Voss (Jun 19, 2008)

Arbitrary said:
			
		

> You can still distribute magic items in such a way as help someone "catch up."  It isn't nearly as impressive as 3rd and the +6 stat items but something as simple as who gets first crack at an enhancement bonus can set a character right back on track.




No, you can't, actually.  Everybody is supposed to have a +<X> weapon/implement appropriate to their level all the time. So if you fall behind with your stats, thats it- you're behind forever.  There simply aren't many ways to compensate for the lost attack bonus, and almost all of them (beyond star pact) depend on someone else giving you the bonus.

@Zardoz- unfortunately, that doesn't work.  As long as the party has most of the skills covered, you can maximize your chances of succeeding at any skill challenge with 1 or 2 people.  The person with the highest bonus in the appropriate skill(s) can just make all the rolls while everyone else waits for him to succeed or fail.  Its sad, but thats what the 'challenge' system encourages.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jun 19, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> @Zardoz- unfortunately, that doesn't work.  As long as the party has most of the skills covered, you can maximize your chances of succeeding at any skill challenge with 1 or 2 people.  The person with the highest bonus in the appropriate skill(s) can just make all the rolls while everyone else waits for him to succeed or fail.  Its sad, but thats what the 'challenge' system encourages.




Have you read anything other than the PHB?

I suggest you read the section in the DMG on designing skill challenges. Pay particular attention to lines like:

"Whether it's the use of a primary or secondary skill, or whether a character is cooperating to help another character make a check, every character participates in a skill challenge."

Turning it over to the 1 or 2 people with the most chance of succeeding should NOT be an option in a properly designed skill challenge.

If that's what happens, the DM has failed.


----------



## chaotix42 (Jun 19, 2008)

ignore


----------



## chaotix42 (Jun 19, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> The person with the highest bonus in the appropriate skill(s) can just make all the rolls while everyone else waits for him to succeed or fail.




Unless of course the skill challenge has a time limit (a possibility the DMG suggests). I had the PCs chase goblin raiders through their village and after 10 rounds if the skill challenge was not won or lost by successes/failures the little buggers would have escaped.


----------



## daddystabz (Jun 19, 2008)

Do you think these Dargonborn Paladin stats would be better overall?

Str 15, Con 14, Dex 10, Int 8, Wis 14, Cha 18

I would suffer a bit on Opportunity Attacks though with having a lower Str but I think the higher Cha and Wis would more than pay off.


----------



## Zurai (Jun 19, 2008)

toxicspirit said:
			
		

> It is basically trading +2 to Fortitude saves and +4 Hit Points for the extra +1 to AC, to-hit rolls, Reflex saves, and to most other archer-ranger-related abilities and skills. To me, although it is a tough call, it seems to be worth the trade off.



You're also losing *a lot* of hit points. A level 30 ranger gets 157+Con hit points. With a 10 Con, you have 167 HP and 6 Surges for a total of 413 hit points. With a 14 Con, you have 171 HP and 8 Surges for a total of 507 hit points.

4 Con difference leads to 94 more hit points - and that's not even counting "riders" on a healing surge, such as Healing Word's +6d6 HP returned.


----------



## Spatula (Jun 19, 2008)

daddystabz said:
			
		

> Do you think these Dargonborn Paladin stats would be better overall?
> 
> Str 15, Con 14, Dex 10, Int 8, Wis 14, Cha 18
> 
> I would suffer a bit on Opportunity Attacks though with having a lower Str but I think the higher Cha and Wis would more than pay off.



Charisma is more important than Strength for paladins, so yes those are decent stats.  Unlike the cleric, who has STR and WIS-based powers at every level, there are paladin levels where your only options are CHA-based.


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Jun 19, 2008)

Are you sure about that Spatula?

I (albeit briefly) mapped out a 30 level str paladin build, and I was pretty happy with the str based powers at most, if not all levels. The only bummer was my 3rd human at will - enfeebling smite, or some such, that was cha based.

Trivia aside, I agree that daddystabz's DB paladin is fine... except that 15 str may encourage development at wis expense.


----------



## daddystabz (Jun 19, 2008)

I guess what it comes down to is that if I want to start with an 18 in a stat as a Dragonborn Paladin, which stat do I want it in? Str or Cha?


----------



## Nikolai II (Jun 19, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> No, you can't, actually.  Everybody is supposed to have a +<X> weapon/implement appropriate to their level all the time. So if you fall behind with your stats, thats it- you're behind forever.  There simply aren't many ways to compensate for the lost attack bonus, and almost all of them (beyond star pact) depend on someone else giving you the bonus.




Umm.. no? Someone always gets their stuff first. Sometimes all will have the same bonuses, but the way parcels are divided this will not always be true.

And what is this talk about "every level"? You don't always have to pick from your highest level, and you can retrain upwards/downwards later if you change your mind. (Not to mention that you won't be getting more attack powers once you have four of each)


----------



## evilbob (Jun 19, 2008)

Nikolai II said:
			
		

> You don't always have to pick from your highest level, and you can retrain upwards/downwards later if you change your mind.



I think this person was talking about stats and not powers.  As in:  your stats cannot be retrained and they go up at a constant rate with enemy defenses, so if you start low in an important stat, you cannot make that up without getting far ahead in item bonuses.


----------



## kennew142 (Jun 19, 2008)

phil500 said:
			
		

> not if you choose the race with that in mind.  i think thats what the OP wanted to say- you should buy a 16 and play a race that has a +2.




On the other hand, you could try role-playing and build the character that best fits your concept - instead of trying to squeeze every point of combat advantage out of the character. I can't imagine ever choosing a character race based on what bonuses it gave me to what stat.

I've only had a chance to play two of the five 4e characters I've built. Neither has an 18 in anything, and neither of them has been even remotely ineffective in combat.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with character optimization, if that's how you like to play. But it's a little arrogant to assume that everyone else must play the same way. For 30+ years, lots of players have been making characters based on character concept and background instead of power/optimization. 

Beginning the game with a +3 bonus to hit from stats doesn't make a character too weak or ineffective. It's only one point less than having an 18 in your primary stat - that is, +1 to hit and +1 to damage. Like everything else in character creation, it's a choice.

I will say that the OP is wrong. No one *has* to have an 18 in their primary stat.


----------



## Spatula (Jun 19, 2008)

FreeTheSlaves said:
			
		

> Are you sure about that Spatula?
> 
> I (albeit briefly) mapped out a 30 level str paladin build, and I was pretty happy with the str based powers at most, if not all levels. The only bummer was my 3rd human at will - enfeebling smite, or some such, that was cha based.
> 
> Trivia aside, I agree that daddystabz's DB paladin is fine... except that 15 str may encourage development at wis expense.



That was my recollection from trying to build a STR-based paladin.  I remember having to multiclass into cleric to cover a level  or two of STR-less powers, but I'll have to go back and check now that you've made me doubt myself!  I definitely think there's more powers to choose from for CHA than STR, in any case.


----------



## Cadfan (Jun 19, 2008)

Regarding the dragonborn paladin mentioned above, have you considered going 17/13/10/10/13/17?  You could actually squeak out another 2 points by dropping dex or int to an 8, but I hate doing that for personal, lunatic reasons.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 19, 2008)

kennew142 said:
			
		

> On the other hand, you could try role-playing and build the character that best fits your concept.



 I always prefer to build to concept, but, so far, I've found less support for that aproach in 4e than in 3e.  Classes can no longer be turned into 'building blocks' via multiclassing, and deviating from the Primary/secondary attributes of your 'build' really hurts.

I'm not condemning 4e, there are trade-offs in game design and 4e set out to make the game more accessible, less troubled by power-gaming, with better balance among the PC classes and more consistent feel of play through all 30 levels.   That's a lot to accomplish, and if the flexibility that allows customized build to concept has to go because it also enables power gaming excesses and class imbalance (and I can see how that'd be the case), then we just have to accept that, and apreciate what we're getting in return (like no more CoDzilla and Fighter SUX threads).

The 'treadmill' aspect of 4e is also a tradeoff to get the same degree of playability and fun at all levels.  It does mean that a character who's a little ineffectual at 1st level because of his stat or race choices compared to his class is going to remain a little ineffectual through all 30 levels - because, if there were options in place to let you 'fix' such a character's effectiveness, those options could be abused by powergamers to break the system.


Of course you should still build a character you want to play.  It's just probably a good idea to start by looking at 'builds' and the races that work well with them, and see if that sparks any ideas.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 19, 2008)

kennew142 said:
			
		

> On the other hand, you could try role-playing and build the character that best fits your concept - instead of trying to squeeze every point of combat advantage out of the character.



 Why do you think concept is in conflict with combat prowess?

Unless your concept is a guy who sucks at combat, of course. And 4e really doesn't cater to that at all. You could probably make that concept useful in 3e, but 4e is different in that regard.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## JohnSnow (Jun 19, 2008)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Why do you think concept is in conflict with combat prowess?
> 
> Unless your concept *is a guy who sucks at combat*, of course. And 4e really doesn't cater to that at all. You could probably make that concept useful in 3e, but 4e is different in that regard.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




And now, after 5 pages of arguing that we were talking about "being suboptimal" rather than "sucking," we're back to the beginning.

"Suboptimal" /= "sucking."

"Sub-optimal" = "Not as good as a properly min-maxed character." See the Character Optimization boards for further clarification.

So, we come back to it. Are we talking "sub-optimal" as in "not fully min-maxed?" Or are we inferring "sub-optimal" to mean "doesn't suck."

The thing is, with the first, the answer is "duh." However, if you have a group of 5 players, and only one guy is a min-maxer, the other four characters will be roughly comparable. The min-maxer gets to enjoy the benefits he gets from his careful study of every option for every boost he can get. The guy who isn't min-maxed does not "suck." His "to-hit bonus" is 1 or 2 points behind. That's it. But in exchange, he's stronger in some other areas than his min-maxed counterpart is.

So how "essential" this is really _depends on your group._ Is everyone else a min-maxer? If so, then you probably need to do it too, or you'll feel like you're "behind the curve" when it comes to combat.

If everyone doesn't do it, then nobody has to. In other words, if you're the only guy in your group without an 18-20 in your primary attack stat, then, _and only then_, is when you need to worry.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 19, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> See the Character Optimization boards for further clarification.



 Come read my threads over there for some examples.



			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> So, we come back to it. Are we talking "sub-optimal" as in "not fully min-maxed?" Or are we inferring "sub-optimal" to mean "doesn't suck."



 Well, I'm asking him what the conflict is between "combat advantage" and "character concept". Your peeve here has very little to do with answering that question.



			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> The thing is, with the first, the answer is "duh." However, if you have a group of 5 players, and only one guy is a min-maxer, the other four characters will be roughly comparable. (...) So how "essential" this is really _depends on your group._



 I'd say it depends a lot more on your DM. If you're playing with a guy who just uses monsters, traps, skill challenges, etc. from the books, you should do the basics of optimization.

If your DM is a math wiz and cooks his own stuff to suit your group's strengths, of course, you are free to do what you like -- you've pushed the design burden onto someone else, since he's not using the published threats, which have DCs and defenses that fall into a surprisingly tight range.

But again, this has nothing to do with the question of mine that you quoted.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 19, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> If everyone doesn't do it, then nobody has to. In other words, if you're the only guy in your group without an 18-20 in your primary attack stat, then, _and only then_, is when you need to worry.



I wouldn't even worry too much about how you stack up compared to your buddies, but how you stack up to the monster trying to eat your face will probably matter at some point.

PCs automatically advance thier d20 rolls and defenses at 1/2 levels.  Monsters advance a 1/level.  You need to be boosting stats, picking feats, acquiring items, and whatever else it takes to keep up with the monsters.  If you're expertly 'optimizing' you're probably beating the monsters, if you're 'sub optimal' but still keeping up, you're fine - you're 'viable.'


----------



## daddystabz (Jun 22, 2008)

So to be as effective as possible, what do you think is the best stat to have an 18 in right out of the box for a Dragonborn Paladin?

Str or Cha?


----------



## Nifft (Jun 22, 2008)

daddystabz said:
			
		

> So to be as effective as possible, what do you think is the best stat to have an 18 in right out of the box for a Dragonborn Paladin?
> 
> Str or Cha?



 Both are good.

You need one or the other, and a bit of Wisdom.

Some points in Constitution wouldn't be wasted, either.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Arbitrary (Jun 22, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> No, you can't, actually.  Everybody is supposed to have a +<X> weapon/implement appropriate to their level all the time. So if you fall behind with your stats, thats it- you're behind forever.  There simply aren't many ways to compensate for the lost attack bonus, and almost all of them (beyond star pact) depend on someone else giving you the bonus.




Stop right there.

No, everyone is not supposed to have an appropriate weapon/implement to their level at all times.  A standard party of five adventures is supposed to acquire 4 magic items per level.  The DMG says these are supposed to be items the party will actually use.  It does not say to always make sure to include items of the highest level appropriate attack bonus.

It is up to the players to make the best of what they find and I expect them to stack magic items they find to mitigate weaknesses and accentuate strengths.


----------



## aprilia4life (Jun 22, 2008)

You guys crack me up.  5% is 5%... that's a REALLY low percentage.   It's a 11+ instead of a 10+ a one roll in TWENTY difference.

Maths and calculations aside, if your DM took -1 off or added +1 to all the AC/Wil/Fort/Ref defences of all your enemies in your campaign YOU WOULDN'T NOTICE THE DIFFERENCE (Unless you already knew the defence figures, of course).

You wouldn't be calculating the stats after 20 rounds of combat saying "I only hit 50% of the time then instead of 55%, something must be wrong..."

Some of you are like the weight weenies in cycling. Nitpicking over grams on your bike when you can easily lose the weight on yourselves (try roleplaying a bit more, hitting 1 more time in 20 doesn't matter)


----------



## hamishspence (Jun 22, 2008)

*the closer to the end, the bigger the difference*

I.e. if monster is hitting on 20s, and without that +1 to Defense its hitting on 19-20s, thats twice as often. Same of its a player and =1 to attack.

On the other hand, if its that hard to hit, somone is in trouble.


----------



## daddystabz (Jun 23, 2008)

So to be as effective as possible, what do you think is the best stat to have an 18 in right out of the box for a Dragonborn Paladin? Which stat is best to put to 18 overall?


----------



## Cadfan (Jun 23, 2008)

daddystabz said:
			
		

> So to be as effective as possible, what do you think is the best stat to have an 18 in right out of the box for a Dragonborn Paladin? Which stat is best to put to 18 overall?



Charisma.  But personally, I'd go 17 and 17, instead of 18 and whatever.

I'd do something like this, after racial modifiers

Str 17
Con 13
Dex 8
Int 10
Wis 14
Cha 17

Then you can use absolutely any power you like, you get good bonuses from wisdom as a secondary score, your basic attacks are still powerful for when you take OAs or charge, everything basically works out.  Only low item is your reflex save, but who cares?  Wield a heavy shield, and have a lot of hit points.  Its the tried and true solution for those with poor reflex.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 23, 2008)

aprilia4life said:
			
		

> You guys crack me up. 5% is 5%... that's a REALLY low percentage. It's a 11+ instead of a 10+ a one roll in TWENTY difference.



 You can throw away that +1 sword, then. I mean, it's only 5%, right?

I'll keep mine, thanks.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## daddystabz (Jun 23, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Charisma.  But personally, I'd go 17 and 17, instead of 18 and whatever.
> 
> I'd do something like this, after racial modifiers
> 
> ...




Are those starting stats for a Dragonborn legal?


----------



## Cadfan (Jun 23, 2008)

daddystabz said:
			
		

> Are those starting stats for a Dragonborn legal?



Its a 22 point buy.  Its one of the legal arrays.  The DM decides exactly what character generation you're going to use, but if he does the default, this is legal.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 24, 2008)

Arbitrary said:
			
		

> No, everyone is not supposed to have an appropriate weapon/implement to their level at all times.



Well, if you don't have a weapon/implement close to your level, you're likely hitting less often than you did at lower levels, since monsters advance at 1/level, while PCs advance at 1/2, but get stat boosts and magic items.  

OTOH, an item several levels above yours is not out of the question, either, so you might very well be able to manage getting a plain vanilla +4 item, while everyone else in the party is using +3 and +2 items of niftiness with extra properties or daily powers.


----------



## AllisterH (Jun 24, 2008)

Um, doesn't the DMG actually state that as long as you're within a couple of points of the expected value, you'll be fine?

In game, I honestly you're going to notice that you hit on a 10 instead of an 8. I think the difference atually becomes noticeable and can swing a battle is when you hit on 14 but you could've hit on a 11.


----------

