You primary stat should never be lower than 18

[rhm001]

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).

The question isn't how much you penalize the secondary stat; it's what you do with it in relation to the tertiary (usually the same as the alternative primary) stat, which DOES have a direct impact. He mentioned Warlord, I believe; your example assumes it's safe to minimize Charisma. While you can take all Intelligence-based or neutral attacks, that does cost you a few nice Encounter options and, more importantly, hurts a lot of your healing abilities. Other classes have similar situations where even powers using primary and secondary stats will get additional benefits from the other stat you've decided to dump.

There should always be 2 stats you can afford to dump, and two that will be the most important to your build, but the real question is what you do with those other two that are in the middle.

 

[Aldarc]

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

You may have done the numbers, but I am skeptical of your interpretation of the numbers. That 18 is only necessary for min/maxers. Losing that +1 does not cripple that character in combat to the extent to which you say that it does.

Cheers, -- A

 

[Nifft]

You may have done the numbers, but I am skeptical of your interpretation of the numbers. That 18 is only necessary for min/maxers. Losing that +1 does not cripple that character in combat to the extent to which you say that it does.

Could you remind me precisely to what extent I said it crippled a character?

As long as you agree that a character would be less strong (or sub-optimal) without an 18 in his primary attack stat*, we're at least on the same page conceptually.

Cheers, -- N

* ... barring specific exceptional cases, of course.

 

[Aldarc]

Could you remind me precisely to what extent I said it crippled a character?

As long as you agree that a character would be less strong (or sub-optimal) without an 18 in his primary attack stat*, we're at least on the same page conceptually.

Cheers, -- N

* ... barring specific exceptional cases, of course.

I am honestly not sure now why you would need to number crunch the obvious that a higher number is better than a lower one, which should go without saying, but the question is to what extent that 18 necessary for combat even including those that are not exceptional cases?

 

[Blackbrrd]

I agree that not having an 18 in your main stat is suboptimal.

You can pretty much stat dump con (give it a 10) if you have high str, but it will cost you two feats (toughness and extra healing feat).

For instance you can have a dwarven fighter with 18str, 15con&wis and 10,10,8 in the rest of the stats. Or a dwarven cleric with the exact same stats. In other words: if you pick a race that boosts both your secondary stat and tertiary stat, you can buy that 18. It will cost you, but you only need to buy a 13 in the secondary/tertiary stat to get 15's.

I think they have perfected the point-buy btw. If you put a stat at 19 or 20 you are paying the price. 18 seems to be the perfect balance between actually hitting with your powers and having ok secondary and tertiary stats.

 

[IanB]

I think a more useful direction for this thread to go would be identifying those 'specific exceptions' that achieve optimal status without going for a post-racial 18.

We know of the following from the thread so far:

tiefling warlock (infernal)
dwarf fighter

What else is out there that qualifies?

 

[Stalker0]

I definitely feel that there's a big cost to paying an 18 off the bat. I also feel that paying the points for a 16 is completely worth it, and doesn't hinder much at all.

So to me the question is this, is the 18 so worth it that only races that give +2 to your primary stat are worth playing?

 

[Benly]

I think a more useful direction for this thread to go would be identifying those 'specific exceptions' that achieve optimal status without going for a post-racial 18.

We know of the following from the thread so far:

tiefling warlock (infernal)
dwarf fighter

What else is out there that qualifies?

Badstat orb wizard (slightly lower Int to keep Wis high plus a little Cha for Spell Focus)

 

[JohnSnow]

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.

Assuming you make it to the long run.

Sometimes, getting that 18 will cost you - dearly. To get it, you might have to dump a stat that you NEED in order to survive.

The question isn't (or shouldn't be): "is the 18 attack stat character a good option." The question is whether the character without an 18 in his primary attack stat is viable.

Now, even Nifft has admitted that there are characters for whom it's true, like the Dwarf fighter. Racial abilities they get make the combination viable, even when the stat bonuses are less than totally favorable.

Let me pull out an example: a human ranger. We're told his primary stats are Strength, Dex and Wisdom. And obviously, with any character, Constitution makes a good choice (more hit points and healing surges). Our human can get a +2 benefit to any one attribute. Conventional wisdom says we either:

a) Focus on two-blade powers and make strength an 18, or;
b) Focus on archery powers and make dexterity an 18.

But is that the best choice? If we shoot for an 18, we end up with only 2 other attributes that are better than a 14. Some of the options:

18, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10 (default array and +2 human bonus)
18, 14, 14, 12, 11, 8
18, 15, 13, 12, 11, 8
18, 16, 12, 11, 11, 8
18, 16, 12, 10, 10, 10

There's no way to get a good strength, and dex, and wisdom this way and have anything left over for Con. Alternatively, if we shoot for a 17 or 16 as our high stat, we can pull off some interesting math...

17, 16, 13, 13, 10, 8
17, 15, 13, 13, 12, 8
17, 15, 14, 13, 10, 8
17, 14, 14, 14, 10, 8
16, 16, 14, 12, 11, 8
16, 16, 15, 11, 10, 8
16, 16, 14, 13, 10, 8
16, 15, 15, 13, 10, 8
16, 15, 14, 14, 10, 8

For someone wanting a balanced character, there's a lot of viable builds there. Like this one:

Gareth
Human Ranger 1
Init: +5 Perception: +7
Defenses: AC 18, Fort 14, Ref 15, Will 13
Hit Points: 30 Bloodied: 15
Healing Surges: 7 (7)
Attacks:
(Standard, At-will) Longsword +5/1d10 +2
(Standard, At-will) Longbow +5/1d10 + 3
Twin Strike (Standard, At-will)
Longsword +5/1d10, two attacks
Twin Strike (Standard, At-will)
Longbow +5/1d10, two attacks
Hit and Run (Standard, At-will)
Longsword +5/1d10 + 2, plus if you move in the same turn, leaving the first square does not provoke an OA from the target.
Evasive Strike (Standard, Encounter)
Longsword +5/2d10 + 2, plus shift 3 squares before or after the attack, or;
Longbow +5/2d10 + 3, plus shift 3 squares before or after the attack.
Hunter's Bear Trap (Standard, At-will),
Hit: Longsword +5/2d10 + 2, or Longbow +5/2d10 + 3, and target is slowed and takes ongoing damage 5 (save ends both).
Miss: Half damage, and target is slowed until the end of your next turn.
Feats: Toughness, Quick Draw, Lethal Hunter.
Skills: Nature +7, Perception +7, Stealth +7, Athletics +6, Acrobatics +7.
Class Features: Hunter's Quarry, Two Blade Fighting Style, Prime Shot.
Str 15 (+2)
Con 13 (+1)
Dex 16 (+3)
Int 10 (+0)
Wis 15 (+2)
Cha 8 (-1)
Gear: Adventurer's Kit, Hide Armor, Longswords (2), Dagger, Longbow, Arrows.

How is this not a viable character? What does an 18 buy me? +1 to hit and damage? Thanks, but with a +5 to hit on all my attacks, I think I'll take my chances. Alternatively, I could give up a point each in Str and Wis (wouldn't lose any bonus) to get an 18 Dexterity. Then, my dex attacks would be much better, but my strength and wisdom would be worse.

Yes, I admit it's better at Level 1, but those 15s mean Str and Wis can each be bumped to 16 sooner rather than later.

I guess I have a problem with tagging the character's entire "effectiveness" to how often he hits in combat (and moreover, how well he does that at 1st-level). I just think people are assigning an awful lot of value to a small to-hit bonus and deciding that anything else is therefore "sub-optimal."

Plenty of things matter. That extra healing surge from having a 12 or 13 Constitution instead of a 10 is huge. Alternatively, I could take that extra 2 points from cutting Wis and Str to 14 and give myself a 14 Con instead of an 18 Dex. Which is one more healing surge.

That's occasionally going to come in much more handy than a measily +1 to hit and damage. IMO only, of course.

If it were all about the two-hit bonus, then all rangers should take two-blade style for the better attack bonus. Longswords give a proficiency bonus of +3, whereas longbows only give +2.

 

[Lord Sessadore]

I think a more useful direction for this thread to go would be identifying those 'specific exceptions' that achieve optimal status without going for a post-racial 18.

We know of the following from the thread so far:

tiefling warlock (infernal)
dwarf fighter

What else is out there that qualifies?

Dwarven battle cleric with dwarven weapon specialization should be in the same boat as the dwarven fighter. I would imagine a dwarf paladin with the same feat would also be similar.