Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Olgar Shiverstone" data-source="post: 4306421" data-attributes="member: 5868">I don't think 18 is absolutely necessary unless you're considering the character from a single-stat optimization perspective.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; You don't have to &quot;cover your bases&quot; in everything.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; And these are other ways to compensate for some stats (albeit not as many as there were in 3E).&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Olgar Shiverstone, post: 4306421, member: 5868"] 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.) [/QUOTE]

Verification