Ability bonuses

[ferratus]

Would giving a race a +4 in one ability score instead of the usual +2, +2 be unbalanced? I know this was usually the case in 3.5, especially for classes that relied on a single ability. Since ability scores are tied directly to attack rolls in 4e, is this more or less of a problem?

How about +1, +1, +2?

 

[lightblade]

I would say so, yes. That race becomes the defacto best race for a build that emphasizes that ability score, if one simply cares about maximising to-hit and damage. For now, either you have a +2 or a +0 for an attack stat, and the designers wanted the +0 to be viable. (Dwarf fighters, for example). If you introduce a +4 into the mix, now the +0 guy is two behind, which is a pretty serious issue.

 

[ferratus]

I figured as much.

As for the +1, +1, +2, it would probably encourage odd numbers instead of even for ability boosts. Is that necessarily a bad thing?

 

[lightblade]

Maybe. The ability score point jump occurs between 13 and 14. So, someone can take two scores to 13 and then have them both be 14, as opposed to ending up with a 13 and a 15. Oddly enough, the +1 to 2 seems to encourage even scores, not odd ones. (Pun not intended).

 

[babinro]

+1,+1, +2.
Or even +1, +1, +1, +1 (almost feels like it should belong to a human)

Either of these would be wonderful to see. I believe +3 or +4 would throw off the balance a bit..but the above would work wonderfully for most classes. Especially considering the many feat restrictions and class power restrictions. This would better allow one to become an 'all arounder' without falling too far behind. Hopefully future books incorporate this idea.

 

[Ulrik]

+1,+1, +2.
Or even +1, +1, +1, +1 (almost feels like it should belong to a human)

Either of these would be wonderful to see. I believe +3 or +4 would throw off the balance a bit..but the above would work wonderfully for most classes. Especially considering the many feat restrictions and class power restrictions. This would better allow one to become an 'all arounder' without falling too far behind. Hopefully future books incorporate this idea.

+1, +1, +2 lets you have 20, 14, 14, which I at least would love to have on a fighter (str, wis and either dex or con depending on weapon). +1 is sometimes as good as +2 and sometimes not, which will often mean that +1 +1 +2 is equivalent to +2 +2 +2, if the player knows what he's doing. Which is why it is bad.

 

[Stogoe]

+1 is sometimes as good as +2 and sometimes not, which will often mean that +1 +1 +2 is equivalent to +2 +2 +2, if the player knows what he's doing. Which is why it is bad.

This, incidentally, is the same reason why there were no Belts of Strength +1 in 3rd Edition.