Is an 18/19/20 an absolute must?

[Nifft]

I'm not much of a fan of the encounter design in any of the published adventures I've looked at frankly.

In looking through the monsters from various sources, it seemed to me like the ones original to WotC published adventures were poorly designed compared to the ones in the MM & MM2. This is just my impression based on skimming, but there were some stand-out examples of poor design (like the L3 Giant Frog from a module vs. the Elite L10 Feymire Crocodile and the Elite L21 Remorhaz).

I wonder if the modules are a form of "beta testing".

Cheers, -- N

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Oh man, i was ninjad by you...

the 3 gian frogs i had my party fight at the weekend were really really unfun. An at will that stuns... terrible. 3 of them in one encounter is poor encounter design too...

 

[Blackbrrd]

It's really simple -- if you're not getting enough out of high secondary stats to justify lowering your primary stat, you're better off bumping the primary (this is frequently the case). If you're getting -depressingly- little out of your secondary stats, you're usually better with the primary at 19 or 20.

In particular, characters who wear light armor and use dex/int as primary should frequently have a 20 int/dex. You're getting damage, AC, and to-hit out of your primary, so you'd better be getting a lot if you start with lower (that said, my genasi wizard went 17 str/19 Int, so I could start with a bump in wisdom and a respectable Str).

Characters that can get to-hit/damage from a secondary stat and otherwise get big bonuses from same should go for more balanced stats. Dwarven fighters are classic here -- and they're classic for a reason -- with the right feats, a dwarven fighter with 16/16/16 will hit more and do more damage on combat challenge and opportunity attacks (though not on normal attacks) than a fighter with a 20 in her main stat, due to a combination of +wis to hit and +2+con to damage, -and- get all the good dwarven stuff and very good defenses. And 18/18 dwarves can work well as well.

Taclords are another common upside down class, with a fair number of people doing a 18 or even a 20 Int and a lower strength. I'm not entirely down with this -- I think 18/18 is probably right (for, say, a Genasi taclord), but given the short length of most D&D fights given optimiszed characters, it's hard to justify lowering your ability to hit and damage with most of your encounters and dailies just to power up your at-wills (and -occasional- encounters). If and when you can build a taclord who only makes Str-based attacks on dailies, it might be worth finding a way to boost 2-3 attacks per day and going 16/20, though, saving the big boosts for daily attacks off Str, though.

So in sum, figure out what the minimum you need in secondary stats to be effective with those stats, then dump the rest into primary unless you've got a -very- good reason not to. With different class/race combinations having different ideas of what you need in secondary for being "effective".

Won't a Dwarf with a 16 starting str have a hard time hitting with his combat challenge? Isn't hitting with his combat challenge a major feature?

 

[Blackbrrd]

I disagree. You're fretting over a 5% difference. That isn't that big a deal, particularly if you can make your other stats work better for you. If a 16 rather than an 18 means you get flanking 75% of the time instead of 25% of the time for example, would you still claim it's a must?

What 5% difference are you talking about?

If you hit on a roll of 11 with 16 str and a roll of 10 with 18 str, 18 str increases your number of hits over 20 rounds from 10 to 11, which is a 10% increase. Very noticeable. It effectively makes your combat challenge 10% more threatening.

 

[Mengu]

Won't a Dwarf with a 16 starting str have a hard time hitting with his combat challenge? Isn't hitting with his combat challenge a major feature?

Devoted Challenge is the Dwarf's solution to that, if it becomes a problem.

 

[Nytmare]

What 5% difference are you talking about?

Every 1 point increment on a d20 is a 5% increase?

 

[Mistwell]

Won't a Dwarf with a 16 starting str have a hard time hitting with his combat challenge? Isn't hitting with his combat challenge a major feature?

Devoted Challenge

Prerequisites: Dwarf, fighter, Combat Challenge class feature
Benefit: When you make a melee basic attack granted by Combat Challenge, you gain a bonus to the attack and damage rolls equal to your Wisdom modifier.

I really think WOTC intended the Dwarf Fighter to be iconic, and to start with a 16 Str. There are just so many little things built in to make it work well. The +2 damage with hammers and proficiency with superior hammers with one feat, the second wind as a minor action, the resistance to being forcefully moved, Hammer Rhythm feat, Marked Scourge, Dwarven Durability, the shield feats, honored foe with the paladin multiclass feat, etc.. I'm sure you can do a Dwarven Fighter with 18 starting strength, but you absolutely can do a good one with a 16 strength as well.

And lets face it...brash strike was probably invented with the dwarven fighter in mind as well.

 

[Obryn]

Every 1 point increment on a d20 is a 5% increase?

Kinda.

From an outside perspective, the difference on a single attack might be, say, 50% vs. 55%. This isn't always a useful measure, though.

From a player perspective, this 5% increase translates to hitting 10% more frequently - that is, hitting on 11 numbers instead of 10. That +1 represents a 10% increase in the chance to hit.

-O

 

[Nifft]

Kinda.

From an outside perspective, the difference on a single attack might be, say, 50% vs. 55%. This isn't always a useful measure, though.

From a player perspective, this 5% increase translates to hitting 10% more frequently - that is, hitting on 11 numbers instead of 10. That +1 represents a 10% increase in the chance to hit.

IMHO this distinction is unnecessarily confusing for the exact people who aren't good at math.

IMHO a more intuitively clear way to say it is: +1 to attack is usually +5% expected damage.

Cheers, -- N

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I really think WOTC intended the Dwarf Fighter to be iconic, and to start with a 16 Str. There are just so many little things built in to make it work well.

Well, it is safe to say it DOES work excellently well. Taking an 18 STR is definitely an option, but not at all required. I think overall they've tried to aim for 16 prime req characters to be perfectly viable builds. I'm actually a bit disappointed that they seem to be moving away from ability score prereqs for feats though. It was a good way to really make the less lopsided builds stand out.

Kinda.

From an outside perspective, the difference on a single attack might be, say, 50% vs. 55%. This isn't always a useful measure, though.

From a player perspective, this 5% increase translates to hitting 10% more frequently - that is, hitting on 11 numbers instead of 10. That +1 represents a 10% increase in the chance to hit.

-O

It is really only the "player perspective" that matters. When you analyze characters damage output that is what shows you the trade-off you're making. Indeed it means that in the nominal case an 18 prime req is going to have you hitting 10% more. Of course with high accuracy builds like most rogues you'll see a bit less than a 10% benefit from an additional +1 and vice versa for lower accuracy builds. Of course this also carries over into feats etc which give to-hit bonuses. Optimizing to-hit beyond a certain point starts to look less and less inviting. Optimizing damage always looks good, though its usually still better to increase to-hit up to a certain point. There really is no single rule of thumb that gives a "best" balance between different options for all builds, so its really pretty hard to argue about ideal ability score numbers in some kind of general way.