Not at all. Everyone has three "safe" dump stats, some have four (wizard only needs INT + mastery stat). In some cases you can also dump your teritary class stat, but you don't need to in order to pump up your primary. And CON is semi-questionable as a dump stat because more HP and surges are always useful, but an average CON in 4e doesn't have the dramatic impact it has in 3e, so you can get away with it if you so choose.rhm001 said:
You primary stat should never be lower than 18
- Thread starter Branduil
- Start date
Lord Sessadore
Explorer
I think a big sticking point in this thread is between those who are looking at flexible builds that are viable and those who are looking at optimal builds. So perhaps the question is whether being optimal is valuable enough that it is more desirable than some flexibility and a sub-optimal but completely viable build.
I don't expect that we'd ever come to a conclusive answer as to which of those two options is better. It's a matter of preference - do you want to be the guy that is the very best at what he does, but not that great at anything else, or do you want to be the guy that is pretty darn good at what he does, and decent at most other things.
If you want an optimized character, 18 is the way to go (but not buying a straight 18 - I mean a 16 with +2 from race), unless you pick an exceptional case, such as the dwarven fighter with dwarven weapon talent. In my opinion, a 20 is too costly in most scenarios. Some would disagree, and that's fine. Getting that 18, though, requires that you select a race with a bonus to your primary stat, limiting your choices somewhat. An 18 in your primary stat basically guarantees optimality offensively in combat. The only question is whether you're willing to sacrifice the small dent to defense, or possible feat selection, or out-of-combat flexibility.
If you don't mind having a totally optimized character, a 16 is just fine. Either with a racial bonus or without, neither is that costly. It gives you more flexibility in and out of combat, shores up some of your other potential weaknesses, and you shouldn't be that far behind the guy with the 18 in the offense department. Yes, it is sub-optimal - but that doesn't mean it sucks. I haven't done hard math to prove this, but I think that the system is designed to accommodate 16 in primary stats, meaning that you would be on par with design expectations.
Assuming that the system is designed so that having a 16 in your primary stat will give you roughly a 50% chance to hit (or even 55% or 60%), then going with 16 won't really hurt you, and getting that 18 will only put you slightly ahead of the curve, but not far enough to make it necessary.
Just my 2 cents. Take it or leave it, it's up to you.
I don't expect that we'd ever come to a conclusive answer as to which of those two options is better. It's a matter of preference - do you want to be the guy that is the very best at what he does, but not that great at anything else, or do you want to be the guy that is pretty darn good at what he does, and decent at most other things.
If you want an optimized character, 18 is the way to go (but not buying a straight 18 - I mean a 16 with +2 from race), unless you pick an exceptional case, such as the dwarven fighter with dwarven weapon talent. In my opinion, a 20 is too costly in most scenarios. Some would disagree, and that's fine. Getting that 18, though, requires that you select a race with a bonus to your primary stat, limiting your choices somewhat. An 18 in your primary stat basically guarantees optimality offensively in combat. The only question is whether you're willing to sacrifice the small dent to defense, or possible feat selection, or out-of-combat flexibility.
If you don't mind having a totally optimized character, a 16 is just fine. Either with a racial bonus or without, neither is that costly. It gives you more flexibility in and out of combat, shores up some of your other potential weaknesses, and you shouldn't be that far behind the guy with the 18 in the offense department. Yes, it is sub-optimal - but that doesn't mean it sucks. I haven't done hard math to prove this, but I think that the system is designed to accommodate 16 in primary stats, meaning that you would be on par with design expectations.
Assuming that the system is designed so that having a 16 in your primary stat will give you roughly a 50% chance to hit (or even 55% or 60%), then going with 16 won't really hurt you, and getting that 18 will only put you slightly ahead of the curve, but not far enough to make it necessary.
Just my 2 cents. Take it or leave it, it's up to you.
JohnSnow
Hero
Lord Sessadore said:
I see where you're coming from. The open question to my mind is whether offensive optimality defines what is "optimal?"
Personally, I think the answer is "no." The best character, offensively, is not necessarily the most optimal character. I realize this may fly in the face of the belief of the CharOp crowd, but that may be the crux of the disagreement here.
Lord Sessadore said:
I assume you meant to imply people who didn't have a totally optimized character.
The thing is those "other potential weaknesses" are an inherent part of your so-called "optimal" character. The 20 INT wizard may be a spellcasting genius who almost always hits with his spells, but if he's got low Fort and reflex defenses, or especially low hit points, he's got some very serious, and exploitable vulnerability. Compare and contrast that with the guy who gave up those couple points in order to be more durable, and I think which one is "optimal" is up for debate.
In other words, it's my feeling that "optimal" is pretty situational. I might be able to accept that the CharOp crowd uses it to mean strictly "offensive capability," but that doesn't mean I have to agree they're right.
I think for optimal defense, you should have at least a +1 stat boost (and +2 would be better) to each of your defense scores. And given the stat splits, that usually means we're talking about investing in a third stat, not a fourth. For almost every class, there's usually a side benefit to putting some resources into that third stat.
The exceptions are Paladins and clerics, whose powers rely on both Will stats, but benefit little (aside from the ref bonus) from either intelligence or dexterity; and fighters, who have a fairly strong incentive to take both Fort stats, but get little benefit from either charisma or wisdom.
So, fighters will (no doubt) often have a weak will defense whereas clerics and paladins will probably have a weak reflex defense.
Similarly, I think the best chance when targeting a wizard will be to attack his fortitude defense. But that's just a guess.
Last edited:
IanB said:
I'm not sure how you want to define optimal status. I mean a human can always have an 18 in his primary stat. But if you want to play a charisma based paladin, but are worried about healing in your party since the only other healer in your 6-player party is a tactical Warlord, you might go for a stat distribution like:
Str 14, Con 13, Dex 10, Int 8, Wis 16, Cha 16.
This gives you 3 lay on hands a day, is nicely supplemented by Healing Hands and Durable, and is probably optimal for what you want to play. Is it the best human paladin ever? Probably not, but in its context, and to suit the party needs, it's the best it can be.
Tiefling Warlock
Dwarf Fighter (con and wis secondary)
Elf Fighter (dex and wis secondary)
Str/Wis cleric
Str/Cha paladin
Con/Cha Star Pact Warlock
Tiefling Rogue (Bloodhunt makes up the difference, and you're maneuverable enough to use it)
There are probably others. A lot of the two attack stat classes can be run with 17/17 without major investment problems. See Half Elf Star Pact Warlock for reference. It can also be fun to run a 17/16 build with a two attack stat class, because then you get a noticeable benefit every stat increase, instead of only caring about every other stat increase.
There are really only a few actually bad combinations, because no matter what any clever person tries to tell you, hitting on a 10+ instead of a 9+ does not count as having a crappy character.
Dwarf Fighter (con and wis secondary)
Elf Fighter (dex and wis secondary)
Str/Wis cleric
Str/Cha paladin
Con/Cha Star Pact Warlock
Tiefling Rogue (Bloodhunt makes up the difference, and you're maneuverable enough to use it)
There are probably others. A lot of the two attack stat classes can be run with 17/17 without major investment problems. See Half Elf Star Pact Warlock for reference. It can also be fun to run a 17/16 build with a two attack stat class, because then you get a noticeable benefit every stat increase, instead of only caring about every other stat increase.
There are really only a few actually bad combinations, because no matter what any clever person tries to tell you, hitting on a 10+ instead of a 9+ does not count as having a crappy character.
daddystabz
Explorer
I am planning to play a Dragonborn Paladin. Thus, you all can see my dilemma. He will need good scores in Str, Con, Cha, and Wis!!!!
Paladin is in my opinion the most difficult class to stat properly. I have been of 2 minds about this.
First I was going to stat him as:
Str: 18 (+ 4), Con: 12 (+ 1), Dex: 12 (+ 1), Int 8 (- 1), Wis: 13 (+ 1), Cha: 16 (+ 3)
This would optimize his Str but his Con would suffer a bit, hurting his racial bonuses some and his Wis/Cha would be decent.
The problem is that Paladins have many abilities that run from Cha and Wis and Dragonborn chars need good Con to take advantage of racial features and for healing surges, etc.
So I started looking at this build:
Str: 16 (+ 3), Con: 14 (+2), Dex: 12 (+1), Int: 8 (- 1), Wis: 14 (+ 2), Cha: 16 (+ 3)
What build do you think is best for a Dragonborn Paladin to be the best defender I can be and to be as effective as possible overall?
Paladin is in my opinion the most difficult class to stat properly. I have been of 2 minds about this.
First I was going to stat him as:
Str: 18 (+ 4), Con: 12 (+ 1), Dex: 12 (+ 1), Int 8 (- 1), Wis: 13 (+ 1), Cha: 16 (+ 3)
This would optimize his Str but his Con would suffer a bit, hurting his racial bonuses some and his Wis/Cha would be decent.
The problem is that Paladins have many abilities that run from Cha and Wis and Dragonborn chars need good Con to take advantage of racial features and for healing surges, etc.
So I started looking at this build:
Str: 16 (+ 3), Con: 14 (+2), Dex: 12 (+1), Int: 8 (- 1), Wis: 14 (+ 2), Cha: 16 (+ 3)
What build do you think is best for a Dragonborn Paladin to be the best defender I can be and to be as effective as possible overall?
Olgar Shiverstone
Legend
I don't think 18 is absolutely necessary unless you're considering the character from a single-stat optimization perspective. The net +1 makes a difference, but a 5% or less difference.
At the same time, don't be afraid to put lower stats in other areas, either. You don't have to "cover your bases" in everything. I'd rather get +1 to a stat that I will be rolling dice for all the time, than have +1 in a stat that is strictly a static defense. And these are other ways to compensate for some stats (albeit not as many as there were in 3E). For example, from a defensive perspective, a heavy shield is equal to 4 points of Dex or Int.
And I think the way the game is constructed, most characters have to make some hard ability tradeoffs. Even the fighter, who seems fairly straightforward -- if you want to use the heaviest armor, you need a lot of Con; but if you want to specialize in a shield or sword, you want Dex. Try being a sword fighter in plate ... you need high Str, Dex, and Con (just to qualify for the feats) ... so you'll go crazy trying to max all of them (though I don't buy Wis as a fighter secondary stat ... it really only matters if you want Polearm Gamble. Most opponents should be smart enough not to trigger movement-based opportunity attacks in the fighter's range, so that Wis bonus to OAs won't come up much. Better to shift and eat a melee basic that doesn't stop your move than to outright move, get attacked with a bonus, and have that movement stopped.)
At the same time, don't be afraid to put lower stats in other areas, either. You don't have to "cover your bases" in everything. I'd rather get +1 to a stat that I will be rolling dice for all the time, than have +1 in a stat that is strictly a static defense. And these are other ways to compensate for some stats (albeit not as many as there were in 3E). For example, from a defensive perspective, a heavy shield is equal to 4 points of Dex or Int.
And I think the way the game is constructed, most characters have to make some hard ability tradeoffs. Even the fighter, who seems fairly straightforward -- if you want to use the heaviest armor, you need a lot of Con; but if you want to specialize in a shield or sword, you want Dex. Try being a sword fighter in plate ... you need high Str, Dex, and Con (just to qualify for the feats) ... so you'll go crazy trying to max all of them (though I don't buy Wis as a fighter secondary stat ... it really only matters if you want Polearm Gamble. Most opponents should be smart enough not to trigger movement-based opportunity attacks in the fighter's range, so that Wis bonus to OAs won't come up much. Better to shift and eat a melee basic that doesn't stop your move than to outright move, get attacked with a bonus, and have that movement stopped.)
LightPhoenix
First Post
From a math standpoint, I don't think it's a big deal between 16 and 18, or even 16 and 20.
Assume in a combat I make 20 attack rolls - a number which is excessive, in my limited experience playing 4E. Realistically, in the longest battle I think I made 15. But assume I make 20.
Between that 16 and that 18, based on the average numbers, I've only missed one attack I should have hit, out of twenty attempts. Assuming a combat runs only ten rounds, that means I'm not even seeing the effect of that +1 every battle. Even between 16 and 20, that's just two attacks.
Now, I realize that there are differing opinions. However, personally I just can't see a +1 as anything significant in the long run. I certainly don't see it as the absolute gimping that some people here seem to.
Assume in a combat I make 20 attack rolls - a number which is excessive, in my limited experience playing 4E. Realistically, in the longest battle I think I made 15. But assume I make 20.
Between that 16 and that 18, based on the average numbers, I've only missed one attack I should have hit, out of twenty attempts. Assuming a combat runs only ten rounds, that means I'm not even seeing the effect of that +1 every battle. Even between 16 and 20, that's just two attacks.
Now, I realize that there are differing opinions. However, personally I just can't see a +1 as anything significant in the long run. I certainly don't see it as the absolute gimping that some people here seem to.
Similar Threads
