Beastmaster: Best for concept rangers.

[Gruns]

Still...

That ranger sucks equally in both systems. But that is an extreme example. The stats from my last post are more like what I was talking about.

I actually think 4e is WAY better than 3e, but I don't think anyone can argue that 3e wasn't more flexible in what options you could take for your character...That was the primary goal for the system, to do away with 2e's rigid structure. 4e is more rigid than 3e, but makes up for it by being balanced and playable.

Whatever, I'm not here to start an edition war.

Even with your stats above, I don't see how this is any more gimped in 4E than other editions. I suppose you're missing Weapon Finesse, but that's an easily houseruled feat. "Use Dex mod for attacks with Off-Hand Weapons and Light Blades". Doesn't help your scimitar, but it never did. I've always thought maxing stats was overrated, especially when you consider the difference between hitting with an 18 STR vs a 16 STR is 5%. (Now here's when someone busts out the Excel spreadsheet explaining how the 18 STR guy dual wielding Waraxes outdamages the 16 STR guy by 17.94% on average...)
And of course we can argue that 3E isn't more flexible than 4E. What could you do before that you think your character can't do now? Besides hit everyone with the Wand of Barkskin before each fight. And top everyone off with the Wand of Cure Light after the battle? Swinging from chandeliers and swashbuckling has never been easier! I still blame power cards for the illusion of rigidity...
Later!
Gruns

 

[Alabast]

Attack stats are just as important now as they always were. The main difference is in stats that are not key abilities for the respective classes.

In 3e, Intelligence was way useful for every character, because of skill points. Most groups I played in had no characters with fewer than 14 intelligence.

Dex was ALWAYS useful for AC, and even armored characters made sure to have at least a 12 for their eventual full plate. This is exasperated by the fact that most spell-casting characters were often forced to resort to crossbows for attacks when they wanted to conserve spells.

CON was typically high, since back then HP were fewer and Healing more difficult.

The encumbrance rules were less generous in 3e, so having at least an average STR score was quite helpful. I saw a few 10 STR rogues and rangers whose players were annoyed to find out that their chain shirts put them into medium load territory.

That's all I can think of for now. 4e is set up to make characters better with fewer high stats, especially with healing surges and the dual-ability score defense system.

As to my numbers, this character would lag in melee, which I do not want. Yes I can have a version of finesse house ruled in, but house rules can be used to fix any problems in any edition, yes?

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I don't get how raising a ranger's intelligence and charisma doesn't gimp him in 3e, but does gimp him in 4e.

It depends. 3rd edition had a more generous point buy system (in 3rd edition, for instance, I created a fighter/barbarian with Str 16, Dex 12, Con 14, Int 14, Wis 8, Cha 10 and even though I did not end up taking the Combat Expertise, etc feats that I had initially planned to take, I did not miss the point of strength that I gave up for it and found a use for the extra skill points and languages; on the other hand, in 4th edition, the extra 14 would have cost me more and done nothing for me, and I would have missed the extra point of strength), less emphasis on secondary stats, and, most importantly, was designed so that characters would generally hit by the time they reached high levels. By 10th level, a 3rd edition archer (who did not have Power Attack as an option) would not suffer too much for having started with a 15 Dexterity instead of a 20. (Strength might be a bit more difficult to make up for). Both characters would be likely to hit with most of their attacks, especially when the cleric tossed up Recitation and bless. On the other hand, in 4th edition, the character who started with a 15 in his attack stat will always hit less often than the character who started with a 20 and both will miss more as they increase in level, making the difference increase rather than decrease in significance.

 

[Gruns]

Confused...

(snip)
On the other hand, in 4th edition, the character who started with a 15 in his attack stat will always hit less often than the character who started with a 20 and both will miss more as they increase in level, making the difference increase rather than decrease in significance.

Huh? You're saying that the one thing between 3E and 4E that DIDN'T change (Core mechanic) is the reason why there is such a difference between stats in 3E and 4E? Are you aware that the 3E guy that put a 15 instead of a 20 in whatever stat will miss just as much as the 4E guy that did the same... I'm seriously not following this illogic. The 15 stat guy always misses 15% more often than the 20 stat guy, regardless of edition. (Unless you're fighting stuff that can only be hit with 20's, but that's not going to be the case.) So again I ask, huh?
Later!
Gruns

 

[Lord Ernie]

I don't see the problem. Investing for a 20 in your attack stat should pay off. If you don't hit more often than the guy who spends points in other stats, what's the point? It was the broken AC vs. BAB curve in 3.5 that made most attacks powered by a decent attack score automatic hits.

Also, 'both will hit less when they increase in level' is a phallacy, as magic item bonuses, feats, stat increases, and level increases keep the hit ratio largely in line with level. What's more, with the specific case of a 15 vs. a 20, you're going to see the guy with the 15 get closer to the guy with the 20 at level 4 and comparable increments.

Desiging a character concept based on a class which leads to gimped stats in that class will logically hurt you in combat. My personal approach would've been to remodel an Artful Dodger rogue and maybe pick up the ranger multiclass feat... same concept, and an execution that works in combat.

 

[Blizzardb]

In my game a player started an archer ranger with 15 Dex (16 now at level 5). The double attack seems to compensate for the relatively low base attack and she manages to apply her Hunter Quarry almost every turn. The player definately doesn't think that her character sucks.

Then again, the group as a whole is not inclined towards power playing.

 

[Baumi]

STR 13, CON 12, DEX 16, INT 13, WIS 14, CHA 14

Hardly optimal, but as always, the bear is a great equalizer.

Wow, I thought you ment a MUCH lower Dex and higher Int/Cha! A 16 in your main stat are quite fine, don't worry about it!

 

[Alabast]

Wow, I thought you ment a MUCH lower Dex and higher Int/Cha! A 16 in your main stat are quite fine, don't worry about it!

He'll be fine for ranged attacks, but melee will be a problem until he can pop his STR up at level 4. Also, remember he's a halfling, so that's not a lot of points invested in DEX for a primary stat.

Still, ya' know, BEAR, so it's all good.

 

[DracoSuave]

====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast DDI Character Builder ======
A HUGE BEAR and his halfling companion, Stunts, level 1
Halfling, Ranger
Fighting Style: Beast Mastery
Background: Impiltur

FINAL ABILITY SCORES
Str 13, Con 10, Dex 18, Int 10, Wis 16, Cha 11.

Starting Ability Scores
Str 13, Con 10, Dex 16, Int 10, Wis 16, Cha 9.


AC: 17 Fort: 12 Reflex: 15 Will: 13
HP: 28 Surges: 6 Surge Value: 7

TRAINED SKILLS
Nature, Athletics, Stealth, Perception, Heal.

FEATS
1: Vengeful Beast

POWERS
1, At-Will: Twin Strike
1, At-Will: Predator Strike
1, Encounter: Two-Fanged Strike
1, Daily: Partnered Savaging

ITEMS
Longbow, Hide Armor, Adventurer's Kit, Arrows (90)
====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast DDI Character Builder ======