You primary stat should never be lower than 18

[Branduil]

Oh, I agree completely. But, IMO, so is one with:

Str 17
Con 17
Dex 11
Int 10
Wis 14
Cha 8

However, neither of those distributions:

(18, 13, 13, 10, 10, 8) or;
(17, 15, 12, 11, 10, 8),

nor any of the other variants was deemed "correct" by Nifft. So clearly, his argument has to give at either:

How many arrays are "correct," or;

Whether you have to have an 18 in your attack stat to make a viable character.

Personally, I think he's wrong on both counts. But that's just my opinion.

It's not really a question of viable vs. not-viable. The question is, is an 18 in your primary stat more valuable than a more even distribution? I would say, the vast majority of the time, the 18 will prove to more valuable in the long run.

 

[Nifft]

So, only humans and dragonborn should be fighters then?

Or are you saying that the only viable build for other fighters is to waste their points buying an 18? Except that wasn't one of your two arrays.

So, based on your self-imposed restrictions, the "dwarf fighter" is nonviable. Clearly, they should only be clerics, paladins, or warlocks (star or infernal). Which means the designers were bonkers.

So, am I interpreting you correctly?

Nope.

Cheers, -- N

 

[rhm001]

An 18 is a perfectly good score, but so is a 16. Why? Take the 18 if you want combat to go faster. Because it will, one way or the other. You'll hit more often, but one or two of your defenses will be lower than those of the 16 character, so you'll get hit more often, too (by something other than what you were swinging at if you've killed it, but hit nonetheless; solos are the exception now).

And that should be a conscious part of your character design, but faster isn't always going to be better, depending on what the other stats do for you and potential power combinations.

 

[The Sword 88]

I know this is a specific case but for a wizard it seems you should always have a 20 if possible, 18 if not in your INT as it is the only thing adding to your hit and dmg at first and contributes to your AC and REF, and helps you with your rituals. CON and WIS are the only other stats that are moderately useful and starting with a 13 in those and 10's in the others seems fine.

 

[Cadfan]

Nope.

Cheers, -- N

Right. Nifft and I actually agree on almost everything related to this subject, he just phrases things more pessimistically than I do.

1. Default rule: Go for an 18 after racial mods. Its not that expensive, and it is useful.
2. Going for a 20 after racial mods is rather expensive, and less worth it than many people think.
3. Don't go for a 16 unless you have a specific reason for doing so.

 

[Branduil]

I know this is a specific case but for a wizard it seems you should always have a 20 if possible, 18 if not in your INT as it is the only thing adding to your hit and dmg at first and contributes to your AC and REF, and helps you with your rituals. CON and WIS are the only other stats that are moderately useful and starting with a 13 in those and 10's in the others seems fine.

Yeah, the use-your-Int-instead-of-Dex-for-AC thing makes the Wizard even more of a SAD class than it already was.

 

[JohnSnow]

I think we have 3 camps in this thread. Some claiming you need an 18 before racial modifiers, some claiming you need an 18 after racial modifiers, and some saying neither.

I'm of the opinion, majority of the time, you will want an 18 after racial modifiers. The standard array, as well as all the race/class selection advice in the PHB support that this was by design.

And I think the two stat arrays Nifft posted (16/14/14/13/10/8 and 16/16/13/11/10/8) are the ones we will see most frequently, though the first one should be more popular since it doesn't waste any points. It could easily have been the standard array, and no one would be complaining about it.

I agree that many people will want an 18 after racial modifiers. It's without doubt true that there are advantages to being min/maxed in that way. However, there's a benefit to odd stats in 4e.

At 4th-level, when the first stat raise sets in, Character A (who has an 18 in his primary attack stat) and Character B (his 17 stat counterpart) both raise their primary stat 1 point. Character A goes from +4 to...+4. Character B, by contrast, goes from +3 to +4. Now, for 4 levels, B is totally caught up. Assuming they keep putting a boost into that every level, A pulls away at 8th-level, and gets caught (stat bonus-wise) again at Level 11.

People are making a BIG deal about +1 to hit and damage. And it's good, no doubt. But it's not SO good that it's worth everything. I can think of plenty of totally viable characters that lack an 18 in their primary attack stat (at 1st-level).

 

[Branduil]

Right. Nifft and I actually agree on almost everything related to this subject, he just phrases things more pessimistically than I do.

1. Default rule: Go for an 18 after racial mods. Its not that expensive, and it is useful.
2. Going for a 20 after racial mods is rather expensive, and less worth it than many people think.
3. Don't go for a 16 unless you have a specific reason for doing so.

Right, so 18 is essentially the default target. 16 or 20 are reserved for outside cases; 16 for cases where the synergy with other high stats and available feats make the 16 worth at least as much as an 18 with lower overall stats; 20 for cases like the Wizard and the archery-focused Elf Ranger where you can completely dump 3 stats with no real penalty.

 

[Regicide]

For the rest of us in the real world, "anything but 1 hits" situations weren't actually common in 3e. And situations where you hit on "anything but a 1" with several of your iterative attacks really weren't common.

Huh? Did you play 3E? Haste, which gives you a 2nd attack at your best to hit is VERY common, as were bow feats which gave multiple attacks at or near your best to hit.

Likewise attacks of opportunity *cough* spiked chain *cough* are at your best to-hit, quite possibly higher with deft opportunist. Weapon Supremacy was another giving a fighter with chain easily 4 attacks in a round at their highest to-hit or better.

By 15th level a melee's bonus to hit will normally be well beyond the AC of a typical opponent even if your DM doesn't allow wishs to increase stats.

As Nifft points out, what matters is the curve, and whether you meet, exceed, or fall behind it. 4e has a curve just like 3e does. And while the curves are different, the math behind how they're affected by a +1 bonus remains virtually identical between the systems. You have a chance of hitting, a chance of missing, its mediated by a roll of a d20, and a +1 is a +1 either way.

Exceeeeept... 4E is based around the curve having players keeping the same to-hit chance from level 1 to level 30. 3E is based around players getting additional attacks at a lower to hit, but the likelyhood of hitting increaseing. A bonus in one system is completely different than in the other.

Suppose my 4e character hits on a 9+. If I improve that to an 8+, I get about an 8% boost in effective damage over the long term.

Suppose my 3e character hits on a 6+ with his first attack, an 11+ with his second, and a 16+ with his third. A +1 bonus to attack gives me a net increase of about 12% when using iterative attacks.

And if you must know, if your first attack hits on a 1+, your second on a 6+, your third on a 11+, and your fourth on a 16+, a +1 to your attack roll still gives you a net benefit of about 9%.

Your 6+ on first attack is completely unrealistic for 3E. Take an 11th level barbarian with minimal benefits, a +3 weapon, +4 str item (or heck, bull strength buff), high strength + rageing (22 + 4 + 6 = 32 STR), and +2 from feats or whatever. He's at +11 level + 11 str + 3 weapon +2 feats or flanking = +27 to hit.

+27 to hit. Looking at SRD Fire Giant CR10 = AC 23. Storm Giant CR13 = AC 27. Iron Golem CR 13 = AC 30. Adult Black Dragon CR11 = AC 27.

Those are some of the most challenging monsters for their CR, and with the exception of the golem which is 2 CRs above the barbarian, he's hitting on a 2+ for all of them. Add on haste and he's hitting an adult black dragon at 2+, 2+, 6+, 11+. The more typical fight of the fire giant is 2+, 2+, 2+, 7+. There is nothing contrived about it. That is how 3.5E works. I could also easily add in another +4 to hit from feats/items or buffs if I wanted, making the dragon a 2+, 2+, 2+, 7+ as well.

+1s are valuable. They were valuable in 3e, and they're valuable in 4e. Its easy and cheap to get an 18 in 4e, so you might as well. But if you have a good reason not to, don't worry about it. Its still just a +1.

A +1 boost from a prime stat is invaluable in 4E because there is no replacement for it. In 3E there was.

 

[Cadfan]

Random comments.

1. Honestly? The default array of 16/14/13/12/11/10 really isn't bad. I can throw together a human hammer wielding fighter using a Nifft Approved array (+2 human bonus in str) and have 18/16/11/10/13/8, or 18/14/14/10/13/8, but that's just not all that different from a 18/14/12/11/13/10. Comparing the first array to this one, thats +1 con lost in favor of +1 cha. Not optimal, but also hardly noticeable. Comparing the second, +1 dex is lost in favor of +1 cha and a point in int that won't make a difference until level 11. Again, not optimal, but also close to irrelevant.

2. Almost everyone ignores the 17. Poor 17! There's nothing wrong with you! You play exactly the same as an 18 for half the career of the character!