Do you need to have an 18 in your most important stat?

[realbombchu]

As a beginning character, can I get by with a 16 in my main attack stat? Am I leaving too much of my accuracy to chance if I do?

The thing is, I'd like to play a half-elf rogue of Eberron's house Medani, but I'm worried that a 16 Dexterity is too low.

It's a pure archer, with some ranger multiclassing and power swaps. I'm going to use the cunning sneak tactic so I can ignore my secondary stat. Other than that, I'm still brainstorming.

Thanks! Oh, this is all 4.0, not 4.E, by the way.

[NecroRebel]

You absolutely can. Your hit chance, damage, defenses, and initiative will be slightly lower, of course, but that isn't really a major problem.

People make a big deal out of +1 to hit because it is significant, but it's not like it's the difference between "you can hit" and "you'll never hit, ever, no matter what." It's more like "you'll hit 60% of the time" and "you'll hit 55% of the time;" it matters, but it's not terrible. Given that you can have higher stats overall if your highest stat is lower, it can even out.

[MeeposFire]

As a beginning character, can I get by with a 16 in my main attack stat? Am I leaving too much of my accuracy to chance if I do?

The thing is, I'd like to play a half-elf rogue of Eberron's house Medani, but I'm worried that a 16 Dexterity is too low.

It's a pure archer, with some ranger multiclassing and power swaps. I'm going to use the cunning sneak tactic so I can ignore my secondary stat. Other than that, I'm still brainstorming.

Thanks! Oh, this is all 4.0, not 4.E, by the way.

Starting with a 16 in general will not cripple a character and will be fine in most cases. For a rogue however that really hurts as it hurts accuracy, damage, initiative, AC, and reflex defense which are all important to a rogue. For a rogue an 18 is advisable (though not required). Is there a reason you are not starting with an 18 in dex? I would go to 18 unless you have a strong reason to not put an 18 into dex.

[Blazen]

Out of curiosity what is your stat spread?

[Meta]

You certainly don't need to have a maxed dexterity, but in this case, why wouldn't you? Dexterity will increase your accuracy, damage, AC, initiative, and many relevant skills. Where would you put these points instead, and why?

Also, I feel a party's optimization isn't tied to ones enjoyment in the game, BUT the party should be balanced among themselves. It would definitely not be fun if the fighter was always doing more damage than you, or very fun for a cleric if the paladin heals more effectively and is so much tougher!

Talk to your party about how they're building their characters if you can. If they have 16's in the primary, it's more acceptable for you too. If it's a situation where you don't know your party in advance, I'd opt for build stronger and if you start to overshadow party members, start goofing off. :P

[Kurald Galain]

As a beginning character, can I get by with a 16 in my main attack stat?
On the one hand, yes, you totally can; a 5% difference is not a big deal.

On the other hand, ask yourself what else you're going to do with that point buy. You're lowering your dex to 16 in exchange for what? Consider that if a +1 to-hit is not a big deal, then getting e.g. +1 to your will defense is not a big deal either.

In many cases, maxing out your primary stat is the best deal you're going to get: it's +1 to hit, damage, one or two defenses, and your best skills, all rolled into one (and in the rogue's case, +1 initiative, too). Would you trade all that for +2 to a secondary defense? For flavor reasons, be my guest. But mechanically, it's a loss. It's still not a big deal, but it's clearly a loss.

Speaking for myself, all of my characters started with an 18 primary if they did not get a racial bonus, and a 19 or 20 if they did. It's simply the best value for your point buy.

[realbombchu]

Out of curiosity what is your stat spread?

I'm considering:
16, 14, 12, 12, 12, 10
or
18, 12, 12, 10, 10, 10.

I want a good Perception check, and my character has the Mark of Detection, so I want a high Wisdom. Otherwise, I guess I'm just curious how badly I need the 18.

[Kurald Galain]

I want a good Perception check, and my character has the Mark of Detection, so I want a high Wisdom.
Ah, here's the thing.

Generally, only the highest perception in the group is going to matter. And this is not going to be you anyway.

You're trading +1 to hit, damage, AC, reflex, initiative, acrobatics, and stealth for +1 to perception and will. Is that a good trade? I don't think that's a good trade.

Is it a big deal? No. But neither will changing a 12 wis to a 14 change your perception check from "poor" to "good". If you want to be good at perception, don't play a rogue.

[MeeposFire]

A +1 to perception and will is worth less than a +1 to hit, damage, AC, reflex, initiative, and dex based skills. Really the biggest reasons to not put an 18 in your prime attacks stats are

1) If you have multiple primary attack stats which is thankfully rare

2) You want to get you hands on feats that require multiple ability scores. Fighters tend to get in this sort of situation so a 16 str can work for them since it can allow them to boost their other ability scores so they can pick up the various feats they want.

Rogues normally do not have either of these issues. Starting with a 16 won't kill you but I don't see any reason why you should in this case.

[Meta]

You might like an avenger? They can be sneaky like rogues, they're strikers like rogues, and they're generally a well rounded class, which you might like. Wisdom is a primary score, so you can have high perception. Dex and Int are secondaries so you get access to a lot of skills. Half-elves make strong avengers too

[realbombchu]

I'm thinking about an avenger, and it's a good idea, but I don't like the divine power source as much as martial (which is my favorite source so far).

I guess avenger would be best if I want to be sneaky and perceptive, though. Can anyone think of another (not druid)?

[MeeposFire]

Hunters and scouts though they are from books that you are not using (heroes of the forgotten lands and heroes of the lost kingdoms).

Seekers work as do monks and archer rangers (or the rare dex based switch weapon hunter build).

[tcrudisi]

To answer your main question: No, you don't need an 18. A 20 is even better. :smalltongue:


Starting with a 16 in general will not cripple a character and will be fine in most cases. For a rogue however that really hurts as it hurts accuracy, damage, initiative, AC, and reflex defense which are all important to a rogue. For a rogue an 18 is advisable (though not required). Is there a reason you are not starting with an 18 in dex? I would go to 18 unless you have a strong reason to not put an 18 into dex.

This. 100% this.


I'm thinking about an avenger, and it's a good idea, but I don't like the divine power source as much as martial (which is my favorite source so far).

I guess avenger would be best if I want to be sneaky and perceptive, though. Can anyone think of another (not druid)?

Well, obviously Predator Druid. :smalltongue: Also, archer ranger fits the bill (primary dex, secondary wis). If secondary stat doesn't bother you, just make Wis your secondary for Rogue. It'll have the benefit of allowing you to take Superior Will. Even as a half-elf you can take Dex 18 / Wis 16 / Con 12 / something 11 / something 8 / something 10. (or Con 13 / 2xsomethings 10 / something 8). Then you could just pump Dex and Wis every level.

[Zaq]

Basically, it's totally possible to have a good reason to put a post-racial 16 in your primary stat, but you need to make damn sure that you do, in fact, HAVE a good reason to do so. And "my race doesn't give the right bumps" is not necessarily a good reason.

[Hidden Sanity]

I guess avenger would be best if I want to be sneaky and perceptive, though. Can anyone think of another (not druid)?

Archer Ranger (Dex/Wis build)
Seeker (Wis/Dex build)
Monk (Dex/Wis)
Assassian and Warlocks, sorta.

[MeeposFire]

Archer Ranger (Dex/Wis build)
Seeker (Wis/Dex build)
Monk (Dex/Wis)
Assassian and Warlocks, sorta.

For assassin only the excutioner could do it as the other assassin types need their secondary ability scores a lot. As for warlock none are good at perception as far as I know.

[VeliciaL]

Warlocks, if I remember correctly, don't tend to do much with wisdom, so I don't see them being great at perception.

[MeeposFire]

Warlocks, if I remember correctly, don't tend to do much with wisdom, so I don't see them being great at perception.

To add to that they have no need for wisdom and as a warlock you are really pushed into boosting two stats neither of which will be wisdom. Either Con/int, cha/int, or cha con depending on how you want to go for pweors. Further their dex score is low so in many cases it will be hard for them to stealth as well.


Thieves can get away boosting dex/wisdom since secondary stats mean so little to them but once again that is an essentials book class.

[Drglenn]

A 17 or lower in your main stat is not crippling it is, however very noticeable, especially if you're not playing a fighter or rogue (as they get +1 to hit with some weapons).

As to your concept I would suggest archer ranger, you can be a sneaky and perceptive. You can even pick up theivery with a background and excel at it. Also rogues don't do archery (they can't use bows for sneak attack and most of their powers)

[VeliciaL]

It's not entirely required. Leaders especially can often go 16, since they can often remain effective while hitting less often.

Although I do tend to take weapon/implement expertise early to offset the lower attack stat when I do it.

Thieves I think I'd stick with an 18, personally, for reasons that have already been mentioned.

[MeeposFire]

A 17 or lower in your main stat is not crippling it is, however very noticeable, especially if you're not playing a fighter or rogue (as they get +1 to hit with some weapons).

As to your concept I would suggest archer ranger, you can be a sneaky and perceptive. You can even pick up theivery with a background and excel at it. Also rogues don't do archery (they can't use bows for sneak attack and most of their powers)

Actually they can sneak attack but not use the weapon for most powers without using a feat assuming a shortbow.

[tcrudisi]

It's not entirely required. Leaders especially can often go 16, since they can often remain effective while hitting less often.

I disagree 100%. Leaders often need to hit in order to boost their party. Righteous Brand? Only gives +3 if you hit. Lead the Attack gives +1 on attack rolls on a miss or +4 (or much, much higher) on a hit. There's a slew of other examples, but long story short? It's important for leaders to hit to give out those bonuses.

But really, making sure your attacks land is extremely important for everyone. A defender who can't hit will just be ignored. A controller who can't hit won't control squat. A leader who can't hit won't pass out all those sweet bonuses. And a striker who can't hit can't do much damage.

[Hidden Sanity]

Only listed warlocks as they can get built to have some very fun invisibility tricks and can get a passible perception with the right skill-powers and familiar feats.

[Kurald Galain]

It's not entirely required. Leaders especially can often go 16, since they can often remain effective while hitting less often.

Although I do tend to take weapon/implement expertise early to offset the lower attack stat when I do it.

Since practically everybody will take that feat sooner or later, it doesn't "offset" anything.

[Daftendirekt]

I almost never do an 18 main. I almost always do 16 16 for the primary and secondary. There are cases where there are few things in the class actually affected by the secondary; in those, 18 main is the way to go.

[VeliciaL]

I disagree 100%. Leaders often need to hit in order to boost their party. Righteous Brand? Only gives +3 if you hit. Lead the Attack gives +1 on attack rolls on a miss or +4 (or much, much higher) on a hit. There's a slew of other examples, but long story short? It's important for leaders to hit to give out those bonuses.

But really, making sure your attacks land is extremely important for everyone. A defender who can't hit will just be ignored. A controller who can't hit won't control squat. A leader who can't hit won't pass out all those sweet bonuses. And a striker who can't hit can't do much damage.

I'll give you that. A lot of Warlord powers rely on hitting as well. Which occurred to me after I'd posted, unfortunately.

Still, as has been pointed out, the difference between 16 and 18 is relatively minor.


I almost never do an 18 main. I almost always do 16 16 for the primary and secondary. There are cases where there are few things in the class actually affected by the secondary; in those, 18 main is the way to go.

That's what I tend to do as well.

[tcrudisi]

I almost never do an 18 main. I almost always do 16 16 for the primary and secondary. There are cases where there are few things in the class actually affected by the secondary; in those, 18 main is the way to go.

I think you are talking about pre-racial. I just want to clarify: do you mean 16/16 pre-racial, therefore 18/18 post-racial? Or do you mean 16/16 post-racial?

[NecroRebel]

I think you are talking about pre-racial. I just want to clarify: do you mean 16/16 pre-racial, therefore 18/18 post-racial? Or do you mean 16/16 post-racial?

Not all of us choose our races just so we can get bonuses to both our primary and secondary stats... :smalltongue:

I've built several viable characters with 16s in their primary and secondary stats post-racial. I've built a few who had 16s in their primary, secondary, and tertiary stats because the racial bonuses went to those secondary and tertiaries. Granted, most tend to be 18/16 post-racial, but that's somewhat irrelevant.

There are such things as dwarf wizards (actually my first 4E character was one) and you don't get a racial INT boost from that.

[Daftendirekt]

I think you are talking about pre-racial. I just want to clarify: do you mean 16/16 pre-racial, therefore 18/18 post-racial? Or do you mean 16/16 post-racial?

Yes, pre-racial. Although there are some builds (polearm momentum, mainly) where I can only have one 16. So, say... 16 14 14 13 10 8.

[tcrudisi]

Not all of us choose our races just so we can get bonuses to both our primary and secondary stats... :smalltongue:

I've built several viable characters with 16s in their primary and secondary stats post-racial. I've built a few who had 16s in their primary, secondary, and tertiary stats because the racial bonuses went to those secondary and tertiaries. Granted, most tend to be 18/16 post-racial, but that's somewhat irrelevant.

There are such things as dwarf wizards (actually my first 4E character was one) and you don't get a racial INT boost from that.

Sure, and I'm well-aware of those. But if he was saying 16/16 post-racial, that leaves him with either 4, 8, or 12 points left to spend. (If he went 14/14 and then added +2 on both primary and secondary, that's 16/16 post-racial and he has 12 points left to spend on character creation). That's why I was confused -- not many people would do a build like: 14/14/13/13/12/12 (since that 14/14 becomes 16/16 post-racial).

[MLH]

16, 14, 12, 12, 12, 10
or
18, 12, 12, 10, 10, 10.
Don't forget to factor in your racial bonuses.

[NecroRebel]

Sure, and I'm well-aware of those. But if he was saying 16/16 post-racial, that leaves him with either 4, 8, or 12 points left to spend. (If he went 14/14 and then added +2 on both primary and secondary, that's 16/16 post-racial and he has 12 points left to spend on character creation). That's why I was confused -- not many people would do a build like: 14/14/13/13/12/12 (since that 14/14 becomes 16/16 post-racial).

Ah. Yeah, that would be an unusual stat loadout, even for someone who isn't optimizing. If you were taking 14s for 2 stats pre-racial, you'd probably be going for a triple-16 set for whatever reason, but that wasn't what we were discussing.

[Gort]

As a beginning character, can I get by with a 16 in my main attack stat? Am I leaving too much of my accuracy to chance if I do?

The thing is, I'd like to play a half-elf rogue of Eberron's house Medani, but I'm worried that a 16 Dexterity is too low.

It's a pure archer, with some ranger multiclassing and power swaps. I'm going to use the cunning sneak tactic so I can ignore my secondary stat. Other than that, I'm still brainstorming.

Thanks! Oh, this is all 4.0, not 4.E, by the way.

You should look at what the rest of the party is doing. It is the comparative value that matters. If they all have 20s in their attack stat then you need at least 18 or you character will feel underpowered.

Many builds can afford to have 1 main stat starting at 20 and spread the rest of their points around to qualify for a few feats. Mostly these are INT or DEX primary builds, but some heavy armour builds can do it as well.

Most of the rest need a high secondary stat and go for 18/18 or 18/16.

An odd avenger build could get away with a 16 primary but I just don't see why you would want to do it.

My advice - it is no fun to miss. Start with a 20 in your prime stat
.

[Sception]

Need? No. You can function with a lower attack stat, although I really wouldn't go below a post racial 16 in an attack stat, and even then you'll want to make sure to take advantage of all your other options for increasing accuracy - +3 proficiency weapons, accurate implements, expertise, etc. There's a slippery slope issue - accuracy is important, and once you start saying 'it's only five percent difference' you can find yourself saying that two or three times and suddenly your warlock is needing a 15 to hit enemies that your fighter friend is hitting on a 9.

Generally, though, you're best with a post racial 20 if you're playing a dex primary class, or an int primary or heavy armor class without significant rider benefits from your secondary stat. Otherwise (and this is most of the time), your better off with a post racial 18/18, especially if your secondary stat is dex or int and you're using it for AC.

It's not about being unable to function otherwise, it's a matter of the benefits of investing in other stats not being as valuable as the benefits of a higher attack stat.

For instance:

Rogue: dexterity primary class, secondary stat rider benefits are minimal. 20 starting dexterity easily the best choice.

Wizard: Int Primary, secondary riders significant, but not overwhelming. 20 starting int still typically the best choice.

Tactical warlord: Strength primary, secondary riders extremely potent, uses secondary stat for AC. 18/18 easily the better choice.

Warpriest: strength primary, secondary stat riders significant but not used for AC. Debatable whether whether starting 20 is worth it, it's certainly not a wrong choice. but imo an 18/18 is still a better choice.

About the only time you want to accept anything less then a post racial 18 in your attack stat is if it's absolutely required for some aspect of your build. Polearm momentum comes to mind as a feat that absolutely defines certain builds, and its steep stat requirements can pull a starting stat below 18, especially if you want to nab it before paragon levels.

The other potential exception is if you don't exactly have an attack stat (lazy warlords for instance).

[kyoryu]

Having an 18/20 in your primary stat is not mandatory.

What is mandatory is looking after your to-hit bonus. A high primary stat is one way of doing this. Expertise feats, more accurate weapons, focusing on higher + magic weapons/implements over other items are all other ways of doing the same thing.

So if you start with a 16 in your primary, you're only down +2 to-hit - a difference of 2 in 10 attack rolls, which will likely not come up in a given combat.

On the other hand, neglecting to get that magic implement/weapon, not picking up expertise, and picking up a less accurate weapon can add up to +3 or +4 on top of that easily. Losing out on +2 you can deal with. Losing out on +6 will hurt.

Example, a Level 1 Weaponmaster can pretty easily get +10. +5 for 20 str, +1 for fighter bonus, +1 expertise, +3 for an accurate (+3 prof) weapon.

Dropping to +8 is okay, and won't significantly impact effectiveness.

Now, if you pick a fighter option that doesn't give accuracy, don't pick up Expertise, and choose an axe or something else with only a +2, you can be sitting at a +5 (+3 str, +2 proficiency) to hit... and that *is* a significant loss in comparison to the +10 Fighter.

Basically, the more you lower your primary, the more "mandatory" other to-hit bonuses become.