PDA

View Full Version : [4E] The difference between a 16 and an 18 in your primary stat...



Aron Times
2009-10-13, 03:14 PM
One fallacy that I'd like to debunk is the idea that characters without an 18 in their primary stat are useless. Many cite the various CharOp power builds that make use of 18s in their primary stats as evidence that 4E pigeonholes characters into having an 18 at level 1.

First, the difference between a 16 and an 18 at level 1 and all the way up to level 30 is a 10% decrease in DPR (50% hit chance vs. 55%). The character who starts with a 16 hits 10% less than the one with an 18. This comparison assumes that both characters have equal equipment and the appropriate Expertise feat.

When you take combat advantage into account, the numbers go up to 60% and 65%, for a difference of 8.3%. Basically, increases to attack bonus provide diminishing returns to DPR.

I will not dispute the fact that the character with an 18 at level 1 is more powerful in combat than the one with a 16. Note that I said "in combat". A character who doesn't start with an 18 gets 4 extra points to allocate to his tertiary stats, allowing him to qualify for flavorful feats like Jack of All Trades and Linguist. By not starting with an 18, the character sacrifices roughly 10% of his DPR to become more versatile outisde of combat (and sometimes in combat, in the case of MAD classes).

Most of my fellow CharOp regulars already know what I've said above, but I thought I'd enlighten those who use the 18 fallacy to bash 4E.

Indon
2009-10-13, 03:17 PM
Wouldn't spending a feat on something 'flavorful' rather than a combat feat have a greater impact on your character than having a 16 instead of an 18?

Mando Knight
2009-10-13, 03:21 PM
A character who doesn't start with an 18 gets 4 extra points to allocate to his tertiary stats, allowing him to qualify for flavorful feats like Jack of All Trades and Linguist. By not starting with an 18, the character sacrifices roughly 10% of his DPR to become more versatile outisde of combat (and sometimes in combat, in the case of MAD classes).

Yep. In fact, this, combined with the fact that Dragonborn get +2 to both Strength and Charisma, makes up the main strategy behind my favorite Paladin build, which will usually have either a 18/14 or 16/16 Str/Cha split at level 1, so that he can qualify for Heavy Blade Opportunity, which allows him to absolutely hammer anything that tries to ignore his Divine Challenge. (Through a combo that involves the Champion of Order PP and either Valiant Strike or Holy Strike, depending on the version of the build)

jmbrown
2009-10-13, 03:26 PM
4E gives you more than enough time to get high base attributes, there are no racial penalties, there are no prerequisites for abilities like in 3.5, saves aren't affected by attributes, and some abilities have a secondary effect in case you miss. The difference between that 16 and 18 like you said is a whopping 4 points which could certainly make a difference in one of your weaker defenses.

Power builds aren't as effective in 4E because there are so many options to building your character from level 1. One of my first characters I tried to get a 20 in an attribute only to find my defenses sucked and I got my ass handed to me every battle.

Mando Knight
2009-10-13, 03:32 PM
Power builds aren't as effective in 4E because there are so many options to building your character from level 1. One of my first characters I tried to get a 20 in an attribute only to find my defenses sucked and I got my ass handed to me every battle.

There's only 2 times I even consider putting a 20 in the main stat:
1.) I'm a Sword 'n Board Fighter, so I'm wearing Scale and a Heavy Shield, and thus don't lose out much on my Reflex or AC anyway.
2.) I'm an Int or Dex main, so my AC and Reflex will be capped out, letting me put the remaining points in either Fortitude or Will stats.

Kurald Galain
2009-10-13, 06:41 PM
One fallacy that I'd like to debunk is the idea that characters without an 18 in their primary stat are useless.
That's rather exaggerated; I've never seen anyone claim that without an 18-primary you're useless.

On the one hand, you won't notice the difference in most encounters. On the other hand, the opportunity cost is low: looking at character power, pretty much everyone is going to have three or four dump stats, and putting points in those doesn't do anything much for you (+1 to one or two skills is less useful than +1 to your primary). (edit) the obvious exception being when you need to qualify for a feat

From a flavor point of view, flavor is mutable anyway so what you put in your stats is irrelevant. If you want to play a muscular wizard or a smart fighter, you can do that with an 8 str and 8 int, respectively, just by roleplaying it.


By not starting with an 18, the character sacrifices roughly 10% of his DPR to become more versatile outisde of combat (and sometimes in combat, in the case of MAD classes).
But this is not actually true. By not starting with an 18, you do not actually become more versatile anywhere, not even if you're a MAD class. If your race has a +2 in the right place, you can easily start with a 20 without sacrificing any versatility. This is because versatility is not dependent on, or influenced by, your ability scores (but rather, by your feats and particularly items).

Mando Knight
2009-10-13, 06:55 PM
This is because versatility is not dependent on, or influenced by, your ability scores (but rather, by your feats and particularly items).

However, certain feats are limited by certain ability scores.

Kurald Galain
2009-10-13, 07:09 PM
However, certain feats are limited by certain ability scores.
True enough, but I am not aware of any feats that require more than a 13 in a stat that isn't your primary already (except possibly armor proficiency feats, but I consider those a bad investment, as there are easier ways to boost your defense).

Based on that, I find that 18/14/11/10/10/8 or 18/13/13/10/10/8 (before racial bonuses) work for pretty much every character, even if your attribute boosts are in the wrong spot (e.g. gnome brutal scoundrel). Maybe 16/16/13/11/10/8 in the unlikely case that you really need +3 on your secondary.

Deepblue706
2009-10-13, 07:17 PM
I don't understand why people don't show the 17 more love. If you span from level 1 to 30, you'll be getting an odd-numbered bonus to an ability you've increased from the beginning.

I suppose that extends to the 19 as well.

Orzel
2009-10-13, 07:39 PM
Typically I see 4 types of characters

The 20's (18+ racials): They focus on the hitting and dealing damage. Their secondary attribute will only hit 16 in perfect race/class combos so they only gain only a +2 or +1. They will mostly ignore whatever they get from it and rely on power choice over feats, class features. They'll take general class options. They can't build to the secondary 'til high level.

The natural 18: Much like the 20's, They focus on the hitting and dealing damage. They might have a better point spread allowing for more feat options and multiclassing.

The double 16: 16 allows for a strong secondary attribute which they build to early. They use the class feature base of their secondary a lot and might mightclass to abuse it.

The 16 spread: Feat and multiclass abusers. Grabs every feat associated with the class.

Renchard
2009-10-13, 09:50 PM
I don't understand why people don't show the 17 more love. If you span from level 1 to 30, you'll be getting an odd-numbered bonus to an ability you've increased from the beginning.

I suppose that extends to the 19 as well.

Because 4e optimizers have the same blind spot as 3e optimizers, which is being overly impressed with end-level builds, which in 4e would end up with a "wasted" stat bump at level 30. Realistic optimization should take place mostly in the mid-level range where the majority of games take place.

This forum is a lot better about that than the Wizard's boards were, though.

Thajocoth
2009-10-13, 10:00 PM
Because 4e optimizers have the same blind spot as 3e optimizers, which is being overly impressed with end-level builds, which in 4e would end up with a "wasted" stat bump at level 30. Realistic optimization should take place mostly in the mid-level range where the majority of games take place.

This forum is a lot better about that than the Wizard's boards were, though.

My first char went with a 16/17 (18/17 after racial bonuses) for Int and Wis. They had incredible bonuses to every knowledge skill and better perception than anyone else in the party. Every level with a stat bonus bumped either Int or Wis to the next useful number. It was a good decision.

Nai_Calus
2009-10-13, 10:06 PM
I tend to pointbuy a 16 in on-stat classes for an 18. Off-stat I tend to go 16. Leaves more room for getting better NADs and qualifying for feats. (Swordmages *look* SAD until you realise that some of the feats you're really going to want to take require stats you'd normally dump the hell out of for x build... And I refuse to dump the one stat Swordmages can dump to 8 and like to have at least a 10 in it, CHA. I don't play surly social retards. :| )

Mando Knight
2009-10-13, 10:14 PM
I don't understand why people don't show the 17 more love. If you span from level 1 to 30, you'll be getting an odd-numbered bonus to an ability you've increased from the beginning.

I suppose that extends to the 19 as well.

I don't use it often, but if I'm starting at a level with an odd number of stat boosts, then I'll use it to save myself a few points to go into the secondary stats...

TheEmerged
2009-10-13, 10:17 PM
Because 4e optimizers have the same blind spot as 3e optimizers, which is being overly impressed with end-level builds, which in 4e would end up with a "wasted" stat bump at level 30. Realistic optimization should take place mostly in the mid-level range where the majority of games take place.

This forum is a lot better about that than the Wizard's boards were, though.

Emphasis mine, repeatedly. My common retort to this attitude is "That would be great... once you get to 30th level. Now, about those other 29?"

------------------------------

Most of my theorybuilds (I'm the DM) tend to end up with 16/16 on the assumption that the primary stat is getting a racial bonus. Some of those secondary stats (CHA for a pacifist healer, for example) come in *awfully* handy. There are some classes (fighter and wizard come to mind) where the single stat applies to too many things, and I consider that a design flaw.

Kurald Galain
2009-10-14, 02:49 AM
The 16 spread: Feat and multiclass abusers. Grabs every feat associated with the class.

...wait, how is that abusing anything?

Kiero
2009-10-14, 04:11 AM
I don't care about super-optimality, and I don't think most of my group do, either. My Ranger's highest starting stat was 16 in Strength, with 14s in Dexterity, Constitution and Wisdom. I don't believe in dumping (as in negatives), his Intelligence and Charisma were both 10. I should clarify that we started at 7th level, so I raised Str and Dex at 4th level. When 8th eventually rolls around, they'll both go up again.

All the other PCs have 18+ in their main stat, so in some instances they have +2 over my character with their primary schtick. But it hasn't really made any difference in play. We're all playing different roles, covering different angles, and each of us does our job well.

Tehnar
2009-10-14, 05:29 AM
The problem is that 4e is designed that (most) abilities trigger on a hit. The fighter won't be sticky if he can't hit, the leader won't grant a save if he can't hit, the wizard won't be slowing/making prone/stunning/..., and the strikers won't be getting their bonus damage if they don't hit. Not to mention you are doing more damage when you hit with a higher starting main stat, so the OP's numbers are not entirely correct.

The benefit of higher secondary stats are better defenses, ability to qualify for feats, and bonus to certain powers. I say that these benefits are secondary to consider compared with getting a high main stat. Let me elaborate.

Defenses: higher defenses sound all well and good but there are a couple of thing to consider first.
1) Monsters that are dead or otherwise unable to attack (such as melee monsters that are immobilized and with no one in melee range) do no damage.
2) The encounter composition: Defensive builds benefit in encounters where monster levels are low compared to the character level, thus their to hit is low. In encounters where the monsters are of higher levels then the party, they will hit you. It wont matter what your defenses are. For example during a recent fight with a succubus amongst others, she hit my 12 wisdom human fighter with her vs will attacks on a 2. Having 16 wisdom would raise her needed attack roll to a 4, which while it is a 100% increase, guess how many times she missed the fighter during that combat? The fact is that encounters with creatures lower then your level are easy, and encounters with higher level creatures are hard. And there your defenses don't matter so much compared with your ability to prevent the monsters from attacking you in the first place.

Benefit of feats or powers from higher secondary ability scores:
Most of the secondary ability score bonuses to powers is that they deal additional damage to the targets hit with that power. What you have to notice is a) you have to hit, b) having a higher main stat also insures more damage, so in most cases you will do the same amount of damage by having a higher main stat.
For feats, most classes are based around the philosophy of a main stat and a choice between secondary stats. To qualify for feats optimal for your build (as designated by your choice of a secondary stat) you need not put it higher then 12 or 13 at level 1 and raise it every chance you get. So with a little planning you really don't need high secondary abilities to get the feats that go with your build.


Of course this is only for combat, but what you look in CO is the characters combat efficiency.

Kurald Galain
2009-10-14, 05:51 AM
Defenses: higher defenses sound all well and good but there are a couple of thing to consider first.
You attack more often than you are attacked on a particular defense (and if your character uses area powers, much more often); so +1 to hit is more valuable than +1 to fortitude defense.

Also, boosting your primary attribute by +1 will also increase one of your defenses. Assuming reasonable variation in monsters encountered, having a 14 in reflex and in fortitude is statistically exactly as good as having as 13 reflex and 15 fortitude, or a 12 reflex and 16 fortitude.

Thajocoth
2009-10-14, 10:16 AM
Assuming reasonable variation in monsters encountered, having a 14 in reflex and in fortitude is statistically exactly as good as having as 13 reflex and 15 fortitude, or a 12 reflex and 16 fortitude.

Actually not, reflex is hit more often than fortitude. AC > Reflex > Fort > Will

I generally say they're attacked about 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, and 1/8 of the time, but I know those numbers aren't exact.

Kurald Galain
2009-10-14, 10:29 AM
Actually not, reflex is hit more often than fortitude. AC > Reflex > Fort > Will
Interesting. That would mean that dex and int are more valuable than the other six stats, since they boost ref and AC (and in one case, initiative too).

Mando Knight
2009-10-14, 10:36 AM
...wait, how is that abusing anything?

That's what I'd like to know. Those feats were put there for a reason. Doesn't do you much good to not use them...

There's also enough class and race-specific feats (for the classes covered in X Power books so far, anyway) that you probably won't be able to get all of them, anyway. Especially if you're a Bard that wants to do everything.

Mastikator
2009-10-14, 10:37 AM
A character who doesn't start with an 18 gets 4 extra points

He gets 6 extra points.

So yeah, your point stands even stronger. For anyone but ultra-SAD, it's kinda not even worth it.
I tend to build characters that are not pure spellcasters to have 16 in one.

Kylarra
2009-10-14, 10:39 AM
I've noticed the majority of my "built for fun*" characters tend to have 16 highest stats pre-racials.


*for fun only meaning not for a specific game.