Do you always put your stat bumps in your two highest stats?

[Afrodyte]

I reflect on the events and actions that have happened in game and put the increase in a stat that seems natural for the character to have grown in.

Blasphemy!!!!!

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Since everyone generally boosts their primary stat, I think this is a clue that "to hit" should not have been bound to an ability score. You want it as high as possible anyway, and it gets in the way of multiclassing.

I on the other hand sees this as a bonus not a flaw. It means everyone is a speclist, not a jack of all trades...

If they didn't tie into scores as you suggest then it would be way to generic for my taste... I mean what would it be 1/2 level+5/7/9....

I like the fact that I am a strong fighter with a 18 str 16 con and 12 wis, but Tom is a more well rounded fighter with 16 str and wis and Con

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

One thing that we all assume when we are discussing math and to hit rates is the assumption that people are always putting their two stat bumps in their two highest stats.

Is this the case?

Yes. Always. The game's design assumes that I dump a point into my attack stat at every opportunity, so it'd be self-defeating not to. The other stat boost is somewhat optional, but I've never been interested in spilling stats all over my character sheet so I boost my second highest at every opportunity too.

 

[fba827]

sometimes. not always. depends on the character and what i'm trying to do with it and what deficincies have popped up in game so far ...

getting hit too much i might bump whatever is tied to my ac, or if i really really like the secondary effects i might bump up my secondary stat (i don't mind missing, but it just makes my hitting that much cooler with the extra x effect based off the second stat, etc), or maybe i just want to try and qualify for some feat or something that i hadn't considered before.

so, really, no rule that carries from PC to PC. it just depends on the mood/moment/history/build/concept.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

this is why i would have liked more v-shaped classes with one definitive booster attribute.

It gives more choices...

as it is now, you usually have to boost your main stat (which does not have to be the highest)

 

[keterys]

Since everyone generally boosts their primary stat, I think this is a clue that "to hit" should not have been bound to an ability score. You want it as high as possible anyway, and it gets in the way of multiclassing.

I agree that I think hit being based on a stat is a bad thing. I ran a game in which it wasn't (the appropriate stats still adjusted damage, though) and it was far, far nicer for multiclassing, V-shaped classes (paladins with both Str+Cha powers or warlocks with Con+Cha powers? Oh no, the horror), and stat distribution.

In my theoretical and not happening 4e rewrite game, I actually make hit dependent on level + a couple accuracy vs. damage decisions + powers, dropping both stats and equipment. If it works for monsters, why not players. Either way, solves a bunch of problems. I'm sure some people wouldn't like getting +1 to hit every level though

 

[Jhaelen]

Since everyone generally boosts their primary stat, I think this is a clue that "to hit" should not have been bound to an ability score. You want it as high as possible anyway, and it gets in the way of multiclassing.

Excellent observation!
That thought has occured to me, as well. Since in 4e any ability may be used for attack rolls it's the logical next step.

It seems that abilities are mostly tied to power sources and to a lesser degree to roles. I'd either like to see these links either dropped entirely or at least only tied to roles. The latter could serve to limit multiclassing as a way to gain powers from every role (which is probably something that should be discouraged by game mechanics).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

As said above, attributes for physical attacks should be tied to strength or dexterity. magical attacks should be tied to Intelligence, Wisdom or Charisma.

This would:

a) make multiclassing easier
b) make everyone competent in basic attacks when it fits its role
c) will make playing classes more interesting, because you have a lot more choices to make.

Maybe the to it is always 3+level and the rest only determines damage could work too.

 

[Dausuul]

I've been on the "no attack stat" bandwagon for a while now. Changing attack bonus to a straight level + proficiency + 3* would drastically simplify the math, make multiclassing less cumbersome, and encourage diversity in PC stats.

You'd probably still see a lot of people putting all their stat boosts into the two top stats, but there would be many more characters with a top stat of 16 or even less, and not every character would have their highest score in their primary stat.

[SIZE=-2]*The 3 is based on averaging attack bonus across all 30 levels for a character with an 18 primary stat, boosting it at every opportunity, receiving improved magic weapon/implement at levels 2, 7, 12, 17, 22, and 27, and taking an Expertise feat.[/SIZE]

 

[catsclaw227]

I've been on the "no attack stat" bandwagon for a while now. Changing attack bonus to a straight level + proficiency + 3* would drastically simplify the math, make multiclassing less cumbersome, and encourage diversity in PC stats.[/SIZE]

This would make the idea of hitting less important than the damage done and the conditions applied.

But I can see a lot of potential for cheese such as Fighters taking low STR and boost other things to get bonuses in areas where they weren't meant to collect bonuses that high.

I would have to see something like this done and playtested. Also, the rest of the game would need to be radically changed to support this model.