Ability Score Blues

If your party takes an extra round to defeat an elite, or a pair of brutes 'cos you're doing less damage, or soldiers 'cos you're missing .. it costs you extra pain.
That extra round means an additional extra round for the next couple of mobs .. in a large battle, it could mean for your "survivability build party," your foes get 20+ additional actions.
The number of additional actions your enemies get determines your survivability.
It's a cumulative effect. Each action they get costs you resources. Even if you win one fight, unless you're kitted out for laying waste, you may lose the next .. 'cos ... you're not going to get that much better at laying waste between encounters.

yes, as is waiting for your first action while everybody has a higher initiative than you... you act last, you receive more pain... hidden enemies, because your perception skill is too low (aka low wisdom), ranged attackers... domination... (aka thangs that you only pumped your attacks, now your friends are hit much harder)...

there is the cumulative effect of beeing hit too often: daily powers may be needed just to save your ass, because of a status effect hitting you may force some of your fellows to waste daily utilities to rescu you...

also: as I and others said earlier: fail at charop is not necesseraly a good ting: usually it means: combats are no fun, because they are either too easy or TPKs...
there are often easy ways to counter "optimized" characters if they don´t use absolutely broken combos (aka using 3.5 splatbooks mindlessly - and maybe even then), as optimization means lacking at all tasks you didn´t "optimize". The most funny thing is usually you don´t have to think too long about countering such characters, it happens automatically when you vary encounters a bit as a DM...

just to counter the next argument: but the party is optimized as a whole... just bring up scenarios where characters can´t set up the battlefield perfectly... and don´t hesitate to exploit the single characters weaknesses...
often character only look optimized, because the DM is too merciful with "imbalanced" characters...
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Primary stat is the first consideration, but a well designed character has few weaknesses.
Whatever is not "as good" as a balanced character is more than made up for by inflicting the dead condition.

Clerics are weak at AC. So I'm investing heavily to counteract that.
What other weaknesses do clerics have? Oh, let's see ... reflex?
Every cleric is going to be weak at reflex.
Dead foes hurt me less, so I'm stronger at reflex.

Your other points?
Why perception is the best skill in the game ... so invest in skill training and items.
You can buy a skill bonus, but you can't buy an attack bonus.
Initiative is cyclic. So you act a little later for one round.
If your action deals a fatality on that round, you're already ahead.

Besides, look at my comments throughout the thread .. I've said all along that less than 18 is sub-optimal.
With a combo, such as being a wizard or rogue, or a battle cleric, 20 is optimal.
For many builds, the 16 16 13 11 10 8 array works just fine.

My position isn't extreme, it's a fact of any combat in any system.
Dead foes deal no damage.
 

My position isn't extreme, it's a fact of any combat in any system.
Dead foes deal no damage.

When I read your posts, your position sounds extreme, but maybe I am misinterpreting... mine is also not extreme...

I actually do agree here, but I do think, that a 5% bonus does not always outweight the cost to get it... BUT in some builds it surely does...

But you should also consider that you deal no damage when you are dead/unconscious... or dominated...

... usually it comes down to what you prefer as a player...
 

Sure thing, but giving your foes a dozen extra chances to dominate/hurt you is a lot worse than having a couple of points of extra defenses.
And that's what it adds up to, for MAD builds.
Attributes that contribute maybe 3 or 4 times a combat, is heavily outweighed by a stat that you depend on every single round.

I've seen plenty of level 1 characters with a +3 primary fail to contribute in combat.
In fact, the scaling of the combat for them just being there makes them a liability ... i.e. if they weren't there, combat would have been won much sooner.
 

Sure thing, but giving your foes a dozen extra chances to dominate/hurt you is a lot worse than having a couple of points of extra defenses.
And that's what it adds up to, for MAD builds.
Attributes that contribute maybe 3 or 4 times a combat, is heavily outweighed by a stat that you depend on every single round.

I've seen plenty of level 1 characters with a +3 primary fail to contribute in combat.
In fact, the scaling of the combat for them just being there makes them a liability ... i.e. if they weren't there, combat would have been won much sooner.

only if you get to act first... if you are dominated in round 1 because of a missing +2 in your will defense it will hurt the party a lot and you become a liability... also beeing surprised can make the combat a lot harder...

it usually goes down to: +1 attack or +2 to defense... which is better... usually a hard decision...

also we are not speaking of MAD in general... we speak of how much fokus on that single attribute... and 16/18 sounds fine in most situations... 18/20 should be reserved for specialists...

and actually, I use rolled stats and seldom have problems... and often enough, even those who intended solely on fokussing on the prime stat when leveling up did increase secondary stats to an even sore before raising that 19 in their prime to a 20, realising that there are diminishing returns...
 

I've seen plenty of level 1 characters with a +3 primary fail to contribute in combat.
In fact, the scaling of the combat for them just being there makes them a liability ... i.e. if they weren't there, combat would have been won much sooner.

Yet a character with +4 primary hits only once more on average per 20 attacks. That extra hit might be a daily or might just as well be an at will. Hardly a game changer I wouldn't say

I do agree that for some classes having a high primary is effective but not for all. Tactical warlords with a higher secondary stat can give everybody else +1 to hit on an attack (of their choice) every other combat. Paladins that don't have two good stats can really suffer due to lack of powers at certain levels. Many fighter powers are reliable and they can afford to miss as long as they are doing their main job. An elf fighter with 16 str probably hits more than a human fighter with 18 str - and will qualify for feats easier
 

I must disagree with you there.
Your enemies' defenses go up by +1 every level.
If you build for offence, you have to keep it up, or fail ... 'cos your offence cost you more.
4e is a built around linear progression .. there is no diminishing return.

However, once again, such factors as initiative and perception are nowhere near as important as a primary.
You can invest in feats and equipment that will give up a hefty, in the +10 range, to either of those.
In other words, if your primary cost you a couple of points of those, it's meh.
An optimised party shouldn't be susceptible to surprise ... you shouldn't get jumped more than once per day, and that 20/16 ranger uses crucial advice? That's the end of that.
You roll initiative once in combat. Once. It doesn't give you more actions.
By felling an opponent, you beat any initiative monkey at action economy.

This isn't 3e ... surprise/initiative is king in 3e ... 'cos that first maximized fireball or partial charge/full attack with +sneak ... or invis/dominate ... 4e is a game of attrition.
Apart from orb wizards and some other rare cheese, it isn't a nukefest.

What's more, you choose actions and tactics to shore up your weaknesses.
If you think the party's greatest weakness is initiative+dominate, then have the wizard scorching burst at max range as you walk.

Seriously you can't ask the entire party to build for extra will saves, and your foe will pick the target with a weak will.
Now you may say it's guesswork, but if you're gimping offence, you're giving them many more extra rolls with which to do so.
 

I must disagree with you there.
Your enemies' defenses go up by +1 every level.
If you build for offence, you have to keep it up, or fail ... 'cos your offence cost you more.
4e is a built around linear progression .. there is no diminishing return.

However, once again, such factors as initiative and perception are nowhere near as important as a primary.
You can invest in feats and equipment that will give up a hefty, in the +10 range, to either of those.
In other words, if your primary cost you a couple of points of those, it's meh.
An optimised party shouldn't be susceptible to surprise ... you shouldn't get jumped more than once per day, and that 20/16 ranger uses crucial advice? That's the end of that.
You roll initiative once in combat. Once. It doesn't give you more actions.
By felling an opponent, you beat any initiative monkey at action economy.

This isn't 3e ... surprise/initiative is king in 3e ... 'cos that first maximized fireball or partial charge/full attack with +sneak ... or invis/dominate ... 4e is a game of attrition.
Apart from orb wizards and some other rare cheese, it isn't a nukefest.

its good, that it is no nukefest... i can follow your reasoning, but i still disagree here...

initiative does change the action economy... ever played chess? White has a clear advantage over black... because he begins the game...
ok, for a dragon born, ganing bonuses when bloodied partly remedies it, but there are cases where you don´t want to be bloodied first...

also neglecting AC for any melee character without an escape skill i suicide (your 20Str cleric did take many defensive feats)

when you are surrounded it looks like that:

1 attack from you, 5 attacks against you... so against minions, that 5% chance to drop one more when you already have a 75% chance to drop one, looks like a diminshing return, especially when there are more minions filling up the holes their dropped comrades left...
... here having a 10% higher chance not to receive damage sounds so much better... especially when you reduce your chances to be hit from 55% to 45% or something...

also your DM could consider using more enemies of a bit lower Level instead of enemies of your Level... when he sees, that you defenses are so low, that lower level minions will still hit reliably and you hit even level minions so easily, that there really is no reason to use them, your extra +1 damage and +1 to hit will look like a bit overdone...

show me a character and i will bring him down... if you fokus too much on attacks: lower level monsters will do the trick, not enough attack and fewer higher level ones will do it... so really, offense and defense solely depends on the challenges and setup of the party and the battleground and the type of enemies...
 

Mate, you can build an entire party with 20s.

Cleric with a 20: battle or laser, either is fine.
Fighter with a 20: use a board, and you can tank. Marks are a credible threat rather than just a "hit me" sign.
Striker with a 20: archer or rogue, take your pick.
Wizard with a 20: self explanatory.

Go ahead and try to swarm.
That party will wipe out swarms with ease .. now, I counter your challenge.
Build any encounter, throw it against that party, and see how much more dangerous it is against your balanced party.
 

Mate, you can build an entire party with 20s.
[/I] it is against your balanced party.

You can, however I would say that a party with only 16s or 18s is better - more optimized

A human TWF ranger with 18 strength and a +3 prof weapon is worse than a dwarf or elf ranger with 16 and a +2 prof weapon - even with the net +2 to hit

A fighter with 20 str is worse than a fighter with 16 str in many cases since a top tier fighter needs good str & dex or con & wis
 

Trending content

Remove ads

Top