Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bolongo" data-source="post: 4253851" data-attributes="member: 67076">I've read this argument before and I still don't understand it. Yes, many classes have powers evenly divided between 2 stats. But why on earth would you want to take powers from both branches? You can play, say, a Battle Cleric straight down the line, taking only the Str based powers (and maybe a few that don't have an attack roll at all). This loses nothing in effectiveness. In fact, it's the most effective way to go.Secondary stats do things like provide situational bonuses, or tell you how many times/day you can do something. This is nice, but not very significant compared to a straight-up bonus to every single attack roll you will ever make. Sure, go ahead and make your secondary stat 14 (16 if you really optimize your race bonuses), but it hardly needs to be more than that. The main reason to have any points in stats aside from your primary is actually to improve your defenses. The next best reason is to meet feat prerequisites.Again, with the caveat that all this is strictly from a minimaxing perspective. I fully understand that not all players suffer from a Jiminy Cricket with a Math degree on their shoulder.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60e.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":cool:" title="Cool&nbsp; &nbsp; :cool:"&nbsp; data-smilie="6"data-shortname=":cool:" /> A +1 only matters once every 20 rolls, statistically speaking, so if you only go by intuition you might never &quot;feel&quot; the difference. If so, you could conceivably live a full and happy life with no more than, I dunno, a 16 or so in your main stat. But I sure wouldn't want to try it... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bolongo, post: 4253851, member: 67076"] I've read this argument before and I still don't understand it. Yes, many classes have powers evenly divided between 2 stats. But why on earth would you want to take powers from both branches? You can play, say, a Battle Cleric straight down the line, taking only the Str based powers (and maybe a few that don't have an attack roll at all). This loses nothing in effectiveness. In fact, it's the [I]most [/I]effective way to go. Secondary stats do things like provide situational bonuses, or tell you how many times/day you can do something. This is nice, but not very significant compared to a straight-up bonus to every single attack roll you will ever make. Sure, go ahead and make your secondary stat 14 (16 if you really optimize your race bonuses), but it hardly needs to be more than that. The main reason to have any points in stats aside from your primary is actually to improve your defenses. The next best reason is to meet feat prerequisites. Again, with the caveat that all this is strictly from a minimaxing perspective. I fully understand that not all players suffer from a Jiminy Cricket with a Math degree on their shoulder. :cool: A +1 only matters once every 20 rolls, statistically speaking, so if you only go by intuition you might never "feel" the difference. If so, you could conceivably live a full and happy life with no more than, I dunno, a 16 or so in your main stat. But [I]I[/I] sure wouldn't want to try it... ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification