You primary stat should never be lower than 18

[jtrowell]

As a paladin you already have plate armor on level 1 for free, you don't need the 15 con

 

[toxicspirit]

True, but I think he was referring to the Plate Specialization feat, not the basic proficiency feat.

 

[Blackbrrd]

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?

You need con for hp and healing surges. Fortitude is covered by your strength.

You can get 5/10/15 hp from toughness
You can get 2 extra healing surges from a feat

Oki, bad example for a dragonborn, but that would be the generic solution.

The solution for a dragonborn paladin is to either go for str OR cha. You don't really need both stats. Since you want a high con anyway, I would go for cha, wis, con (in that order).

 

[daddystabz]

Do you think these Dargonborn Paladin stats would be better overall?

Str 15, Con 14, Dex 10, Int 8, Wis 14, Cha 18

I would suffer a bit on Opportunity Attacks though with having a lower Str but I think the higher Cha and Wis would more than pay off.

 

[AllisterH]

The funny thing about this is that the one edition this was NOT true in was 3rd edition.

As Nifft argues, you could gain attack bonuses from a lot of sources in 3rd edition that enabled you to make up for the attack deficit vis a vis the 18 starting stat guy. (A few that Nifft forgot to mention--stacking attack bonuses and larger attack bonuses. For instance, 3rd edition charging is +2 not +1 and a prone, stunned, flanked, and tanglefoot bagged foe nets you +8 to hit with a -2 to the armor class of the foe (maybe +11 if you manage to jump onto a table as a part of your charge to gain +2 for charging and +1 for higher ground); in 4th edition, there is no tanglefoot bag and your bonus to hit a stunned, prone, and flanked foe is still +2 for non-stacking combat advantage). In addition, the math worked differently as melee and ranged attacks at least were expected to hit most of the time as you increased in level. The difference between miss on a 1 and miss on a 1 is not that significant. Now, it's not always a miss on a 1 situation in 3.x but for characters who are focused on physical combat, it often is. And even when it's not, 80% and 85% are both pretty likely to hit. On the other hand, when we're playing in the 40-60% range, you have to scrabble for every 5% increment you can get.

.

Good analysis.

Only part where I disagree though is that this was possible at FIRST level. All those beanies and bonuses kicked in at levels higher than 5 effectively IMO.

As you pointed out, there were many ways to get a bonus however thus only your LAST attack was in doubt.

At levels 1-5 though, your last attack WAS your first attack thus you couldn't dump your prime stat.

If you were playing a one-shot game at level 21, you could start with a 12 STR and be assured that at least your first two attacks would miss only on a 1 but at level 1?

Playing a 12 STR fighter? No chance really.

Same goes for the wizard. At level 21, you can pick and choose spells that dont depend on a DC but again, at levels 1-5?

Yeah, that ain't happening.

 

[Budalic]

Elven issues

So, you're telling me that elves aren't good TWF rangers?

What about 17, 14, 14, 10, 10, 8 array?

Str 17, dex 16, con 10, int 10, wis 16, cha 8?

I'd say it's an excellent build.

 

[evilbob]

I guess I have a problem with tagging the character's entire "effectiveness" to how often he hits in combat... 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."

I think this is because (pretty much) all powers are attacks and do damage. An extra +1 is something that is going to affect your entire game up to level 30 because - as some have said - there is no way to "catch up." Starting stats set the maximum for your final stat.

Taking an 18 +2 = 20 at the beginning of the game is a tough choice because you will give up on a lot. But you will always be more effective with your powers - which are now pretty much the point of the game - than anyone else. Whether or not this is "optimized" depends on the style of the game.

 

[rhm001]

Everyone is attaching a great deal of import to hitting in 4e. That assumes most of the powers actually require you to hit. For fighters (not defenders, since this does not apply to paladins) and strikers, that's true. But for everyone else---the paladin, leaders, and controllers---at least half of the powers you can choose include an "Effect," often the main feature of the power. Note that it's not the "Hit," requiring a hit, or the half as effective "Miss" alternative. "But wait," you may say, "most of the powers need a hit for decent damage!" And that is true. But if what you really care about is dealing damage yourself, play a striker (including the "part striker" fighter in this group), who will need the 18. Plenty of leader or paladin powers are about aiding or saving allies, and many of the wizard's powers are about controlling the battlefield and doing indirect damage.

If you want an optimal a non-striker with a 16, take "Effect" powers. Based on a quick leaf-through of the book, there will be 1 or 2 levels where that may not be an option, but, as has been said above, the need for the 18 is based on the (much?) higher AC's you'll run into every few battles. Use those rare (for you) "Hit" focused powers in the other battles, unless the result is decent even on a miss.

 

[Arbitrary]

You can still distribute magic items in such a way as help someone "catch up." It isn't nearly as impressive as 3rd and the +6 stat items but something as simple as who gets first crack at an enhancement bonus can set a character right back on track.

 

[Aldarc]

Everyone is attaching a great deal of import to hitting in 4e. That assumes most of the powers actually require you to hit. For fighters (not defenders, since this does not apply to paladins) and strikers, that's true. But for everyone else---the paladin, leaders, and controllers---at least half of the powers you can choose include an "Effect," often the main feature of the power. Note that it's not the "Hit," requiring a hit, or the half as effective "Miss" alternative. "But wait," you may say, "most of the powers need a hit for decent damage!" And that is true. But if what you really care about is dealing damage yourself, play a striker (including the "part striker" fighter in this group), who will need the 18. Plenty of leader or paladin powers are about aiding or saving allies, and many of the wizard's powers are about controlling the battlefield and doing indirect damage.

If you want an optimal a non-striker with a 16, take "Effect" powers. Based on a quick leaf-through of the book, there will be 1 or 2 levels where that may not be an option, but, as has been said above, the need for the 18 is based on the (much?) higher AC's you'll run into every few battles. Use those rare (for you) "Hit" focused powers in the other battles, unless the result is decent even on a miss.

Agreed. And a number of the leaders' powers give a bonus + to hit for allies as an assumed supplement.