You primary stat should never be lower than 18

[DylanCB]

Never? Meh, while my Dragonborn Warlord has an 18 in strength using the standard array, I'm not convinced. Is it really necessary? I'm not seeing the game being harder if you don't. Enemies will die less, but if your getting more HP or dodging attacks better with more balanced stats, I think it balances out. I'll have to play more.

 

[Nifft]

I think any Str based character is at an inherent disadvantage by also having to worry about sacrificing a defense (ick) or Con (double ick).

Pretty Paladins and Laser Clerics are in the same boat -- both types want both Cha and Wis.

This is also why the designers say they gave extra nice things to the Eladrin, to balance out the fact that both their ability boosts fall under the same defense.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Regicide]

Nonsense. Having an 18 in your primary attack stat even after racial modifiers is a boon but is by no means a necessity, exceptions or otherwise.

It makes it easier on the DM if they don't have to gimp purchased adventures because your character can't hit things of appropriate level.

 

[Zurai]

This is also why the designers say they gave extra nice things to the Eladrin, to balance out the fact that both their ability boosts fall under the same defense.

Now whether they actually did is another thing entirely...

 

[Aldarc]

"Should"? That and $5 will get you a frappuccino.

$5? That much? I don't know where you are getting your frappuccinos from, neither do I know where you are getting your conclusions. Requiring a feat to make a racial choice viable for a class is antithetical to the what we were told of the 4E design philosophy. So either that feat is required to make tiefling warlocks viable or those eighteens in the primary stat are nearly as necessary as you make them out to be.

It makes it easier on the DM if they don't have to gimp purchased adventures because your character can't hit things of appropriate level.

Stop over-stating this. You do not have to gimp adventures as a DM nor does that +1 make that much of a difference. It would be much easier on the DM if the characters were gods fighting kobold minions, but characters can successfully fight monsters of their level without that 18 in their primary stat.

 

[Spatula]

I look at it this way: there is opportunity, and there is payoff.

Let's say that I have a Strength power that lets me shift 1+[Int mod] opponents.

If I take a 5% chance less to hit (I choose Str 16), I can increase the payoff of the power 25-33% (by choosing a higher Int). Is that worth it? Often enough, it is.

I want my daily powers to hit. I also want my encounter powers to have a maximum effect. Which is more important? I believe that it is far better to support your at-will and encounter powers over your dailies. That's where you get your payback.

When I made my warlord, I noted that many powers affected a secondary ability's worth of opponents. Is that 5% chance to hit a fair tradeoff to shift an additional one or two opponents?

In 4e, payload means far more than damage.

That payload (in most cases) does not happen if you do not hit, though. You need to hit in order to do stuff in combat.

Your example is incorrect, in any case - you are not penalizing your secondary stat (INT in your example) to boost your primary (STR). I mean, you could, but that's suboptimal and not neccessary. You're taking points from the three-four stats that have no direct impact on your class abilities (DEX, WIS, possibly CON and/or CHA), in order to boost your primary stat (STR).

 

[Cadfan]

Regicide- Argh. I don't know what to say other than that you did all the math except the math that mattered (the advantage of +1 in addition to what you already put down, or since you optimized the heck out of your example, more properly the disadvantage of taking -1 off of the stats you laid out), and that if you had done the math that mattered, you'd see that all you accomplished was reaching the break even point where a +1 was of equal use in 3e as in 4e.

There's no "replacing" the +1 you could have gotten with a high strength score with a +1 from another source in 3e. This is because the +1 from the other source is already assumed to be part of the system.

 

[Cadfan]

It makes it easier on the DM if they don't have to gimp purchased adventures because your character can't hit things of appropriate level.

You're being dramatic. If an enemy has a defense of 12, and I have a +3, I hit on a 9. If you have a +4, you hit on an 8. The difference will not necessitate changing the adventure.

 

[Nifft]

Now whether they actually did is another thing entirely...

I did word that carefully for a reason.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Nifft]

$5? That much? I don't know where you are getting your frappuccinos from

Maybe I just tip well. I'm a generous guy.

neither do I know where you are getting your conclusions. Requiring a feat to make a racial choice viable for a class is antithetical to the what we were told of the 4E design philosophy.

Well, you can trust what you recall of the designer's discussions regarding their claims to a particular philosophy, or you can go look at the numbers.

My conclusions come from playing the game, crunching some numbers myself, and work in the CharOpt forum (both the work of others and my own).

Cheers, -- N