Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lord Sessadore" data-source="post: 4306270" data-attributes="member: 57255">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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; I don't expect that we'd ever come to a conclusive answer as to which of those two options is better.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; In my opinion, a 20 is too costly in most scenarios.&nbsp; Some would disagree, and that's fine.&nbsp; Getting that 18, though, requires that you select a race with a bonus to your primary stat, limiting your choices somewhat.&nbsp; An 18 in your primary stat basically guarantees optimality offensively in combat.&nbsp; The only question is whether you're willing to sacrifice the small dent to defense, or possible feat selection, or out-of-combat flexibility.&nbsp; If you don't mind having a totally optimized character, a 16 is just fine.&nbsp; Either with a racial bonus or without, neither is that costly.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Yes, it is sub-optimal - but that doesn't mean it sucks.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Take it or leave it, it's up to you.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lord Sessadore, post: 4306270, member: 57255"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification