PDA

View Full Version : 4th Edition Stat Array



Totally Guy
2008-07-02, 12:36 PM
Well in creating a character for 4th edition quickly I explain to a couple of people to pick a line from the method 2 array. I thought to myself, there's a good selection here, I think it's a fair way to do it without having to say to get to an 18 you have to spend 4 more points than than 17... But then I found myself curious as to how many ways there were of splitting it up.

18 14 11 10 10 8
18 13 13 10 10 8
18 13 12 11 10 8
18 13 11 11 11 8
18 12 12 12 10 8
17 16 11 10 10 8
17 15 13 10 10 8
17 15 12 11 10 8
17 15 11 11 11 8
17 14 14 10 10 8
17 14 13 12 10 8
17 14 13 11 11 8
17 14 12 12 11 8
17 13 13 13 11 8
17 13 13 12 12 8
16 16 13 11 10 8
16 16 12 12 10 8
16 16 12 11 11 8
16 15 14 11 10 8
16 15 13 12 11 8
16 15 12 12 12 8
16 14 14 13 10 8
16 14 14 12 11 8
16 14 13 13 12 8
15 15 15 11 10 8
15 15 14 13 10 8
15 15 14 12 11 8
15 15 13 13 12 8
15 14 14 14 10 8
15 14 14 13 12 8
14 14 14 14 12 8
18 14 10 10 10 9
18 13 12 10 10 9
18 13 11 11 10 9
18 12 11 11 11 9
17 16 10 10 10 9
17 15 12 10 10 9
17 15 11 11 10 9
17 14 13 11 10 9
17 14 12 12 10 9
17 14 12 11 11 9
17 13 13 13 10 9
17 13 13 12 11 9
17 13 12 12 12 9
16 16 13 10 10 9
16 16 12 11 10 9
16 16 11 11 11 9
16 15 14 10 10 9
16 15 13 12 10 9
16 15 13 11 11 9
16 15 12 12 11 9
16 14 14 12 10 9
16 14 14 11 11 9
16 14 13 13 11 9
16 14 13 12 12 9
16 13 13 13 13 9
15 15 15 10 10 9
15 15 14 12 10 9
15 15 14 11 11 9
15 15 13 13 11 9
15 15 13 12 12 9
15 14 14 13 11 9
15 14 14 12 12 9
15 14 13 13 13 9
14 14 14 14 11 9
14 14 13 13 13 9
18 13 11 10 10 10
18 12 12 10 10 10
18 12 11 11 10 10
18 11 11 11 11 10
17 15 11 10 10 10
17 14 13 10 10 10
17 14 12 11 10 10
17 13 11 11 11 10
17 13 13 12 10 10
17 13 13 11 11 10
17 13 12 12 11 10
17 12 12 12 12 10
16 16 12 10 10 10
16 16 11 11 10 10
16 15 13 11 10 10
16 15 12 12 10 10
16 15 12 11 11 10
16 14 14 11 10 10
16 14 13 13 10 10
16 14 13 12 11 10
16 14 12 12 12 10
16 13 13 13 12 10
15 15 14 11 10 10
15 15 13 13 10 10
15 15 13 12 11 10
15 15 12 12 12 10
15 14 14 13 10 10
15 14 14 12 11 10
15 14 13 13 12 10
14 14 14 14 10 10
17 12 12 11 11 11
17 12 12 12 11 11
16 15 11 11 11 11
16 14 13 11 11 11
16 14 12 12 11 11
16 13 13 13 11 11
16 13 13 12 12 11
15 15 12 12 11 11
15 14 14 11 11 11
15 14 13 13 11 11
15 14 13 12 12 11
15 13 13 13 13 11
14 14 14 13 11 11
14 14 14 12 12 11
14 14 13 13 13 11
16 13 12 12 12 12
15 14 12 12 12 12
15 13 13 13 12 12
14 14 13 13 12 12
14 13 13 13 13 13

Comparing this with point buy:
at the top end you get a 24 point character
and at the bottom you get a 31 point character

Does this balance specialists with generalists? I'm guessing specialists are still on top. But of course when you get the stat ups you need to pump it into the 2 biggest stats as otherwise you'd have done better at character creation being general and then specialising.

Anyway so instead of needing to explain the method of point allocation you can simply pick a line from the list. The list is longer than I thought it would be...

SamTheCleric
2008-07-02, 12:43 PM
Wow, good job pulling all those.

I'd argue that the "strongest" set is:

16 14 14 13 10 8

Simply because you get your "primary stat" at a +3 (+4 if you have a racial bump to it) and then two +2 for your other stats (possibly other defenses)... makes you more well rounded and not really lacking in any particular way.

But maybe that's just me.

marjan
2008-07-02, 12:48 PM
Wow, good job pulling all those.

I'd argue that the "strongest" set is:

16 14 14 13 10 8

Simply because you get your "primary stat" at a +3 (+4 if you have a racial bump to it) and then two +2 for your other stats (possibly other defenses)... makes you more well rounded and not really lacking in any particular way.

But maybe that's just me.

I have to disappoint you. It's not just you, I like it also. :smallbiggrin:

LoopyZebra
2008-07-02, 01:21 PM
Wow, good job pulling all those.

I'd argue that the "strongest" set is:

16 14 14 13 10 8

Simply because you get your "primary stat" at a +3 (+4 if you have a racial bump to it) and then two +2 for your other stats (possibly other defenses)... makes you more well rounded and not really lacking in any particular way.

But maybe that's just me.

That's the close to the array I use, sometimes Ill decrease one of the fourteens (and other numbers) to make the other fourteen a sixteen. But, yeah, that's a very strong array, though personally I'd put a couple points from the 13 in the 8, just to get rid of negatives.

-Cor-
2008-07-02, 01:22 PM
Thanks. I'm not sure if you got all of them (anyone want to check?), but if you did, here's a layout I find easier to read. Sorted ascending.


14 14 14 14 12 8
14 14 14 14 11 9
14 14 13 13 13 9
14 14 14 14 10 10
14 14 14 13 11 11
14 14 14 12 12 11
14 14 13 13 13 11
14 14 13 13 12 12
14 13 13 13 13 13
15 15 15 11 10 8
15 15 14 13 10 8
15 15 14 12 11 8
15 15 13 13 12 8
15 14 14 14 10 8
15 14 14 13 12 8
15 15 15 10 10 9
15 15 14 12 10 9
15 15 14 11 11 9
15 15 13 13 11 9
15 15 13 12 12 9
15 14 14 13 11 9
15 14 14 12 12 9
15 14 13 13 13 9
15 15 14 11 10 10
15 15 13 13 10 10
15 15 13 12 11 10
15 15 12 12 12 10
15 14 14 13 10 10
15 14 14 12 11 10
15 14 13 13 12 10
15 15 12 12 11 11
15 14 14 11 11 11
15 14 13 13 11 11
15 14 13 12 12 11
15 13 13 13 13 11
15 14 12 12 12 12
15 13 13 13 12 12
16 16 13 11 10 8
16 16 12 12 10 8
16 16 12 11 11 8
16 15 14 11 10 8
16 15 13 12 11 8
16 15 12 12 12 8
16 14 14 13 10 8
16 14 14 12 11 8
16 14 13 13 12 8
16 16 13 10 10 9
16 16 12 11 10 9
16 16 11 11 11 9
16 15 14 10 10 9
16 15 13 12 10 9
16 15 13 11 11 9
16 15 12 12 11 9
16 14 14 12 10 9
16 14 14 11 11 9
16 14 13 13 11 9
16 14 13 12 12 9
16 13 13 13 13 9
16 16 12 10 10 10
16 16 11 11 10 10
16 15 13 11 10 10
16 15 12 12 10 10
16 15 12 11 11 10
16 14 14 11 10 10
16 14 13 13 10 10
16 14 13 12 11 10
16 14 12 12 12 10
16 13 13 13 12 10
16 15 11 11 11 11
16 14 13 11 11 11
16 14 12 12 11 11
16 13 13 13 11 11
16 13 13 12 12 11
16 13 12 12 12 12
17 16 11 10 10 8
17 15 13 10 10 8
17 15 12 11 10 8
17 15 11 11 11 8
17 14 14 10 10 8
17 14 13 12 10 8
17 14 13 11 11 8
17 14 12 12 11 8
17 13 13 13 11 8
17 13 13 12 12 8
17 16 10 10 10 9
17 15 12 10 10 9
17 15 11 11 10 9
17 14 13 11 10 9
17 14 12 12 10 9
17 14 12 11 11 9
17 13 13 13 10 9
17 13 13 12 11 9
17 13 12 12 12 9
17 15 11 10 10 10
17 14 13 10 10 10
17 14 12 11 10 10
17 13 11 11 11 10
17 13 13 12 10 10
17 13 13 11 11 10
17 13 12 12 11 10
17 12 12 12 12 10
17 12 12 11 11 11
17 12 12 12 11 11
18 14 11 10 10 8
18 13 12 11 10 8
18 13 11 11 11 8
18 14 10 10 10 9
18 13 12 10 10 9
18 13 11 11 10 9
18 12 11 11 11 9
18 13 11 10 10 10
18 12 12 10 10 10
18 12 11 11 10 10
18 11 11 11 11 10

BobTheDog
2008-07-02, 01:29 PM
As to my personal favorites, they are:

16 14 14 13 10 8 (suggested above), and
16 16 12 12 10 8

The first one gives you a well-rounded char for classes that depend heavily on a single ability. The second gives you a more focused distribution for classes or builds that depend on a pair of abilities (and if you happen to get a class bonus to your "weak" defense, it ends up pretty balanced all-around).

Joran
2008-07-02, 01:51 PM
The current array I'm using isn't up there...

18 13 13 10 10 8

I'm one of those Dwarven "laser clerics", so I boosted my wisdom to unholy levels and have the 13 dex and 13 cha to get me the pre-reqs for astral fire.

Too bad I have an 11 in both fortitude and reflex defense... yipe.

P.S. I'm going to regret doing it, I know, but I wanted that sexy 20 in Wisdom.

P.S.S. I do like the 16-16 as stated before.

RTGoodman
2008-07-02, 04:15 PM
I agree with, well, everyone about the one Sam mentioned. I'm not sure why, in 4E, though, anyone would want to use anything like the last one the OP mentioned (14 and a bunch of 13s). I mean, there's mention of "generalist" characters, but I just don't see how you could really make one of those in 4E. I mean, even with the multiclass feats your character is pretty much going to be doing the same sort of things his whole career (as laid out by his role). Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't see why anyone would take a set of 6 mediocre stats over a couple good ones, some average ones, and a low one (or something close to that).

Jayabalard
2008-07-02, 04:26 PM
I'm not sure why, in 4E, though, anyone would want to use anything like the last one the OP mentioned (14 and a bunch of 13s).I can think of several; all of them are related to the idea that some people build characters as people without worrying about what character class they might have. If that stat array is a better representation of the person that I'm trying to create, I'll pick that over something that is more effective in a heartbeat.


take a set of 6 mediocre stats That word... I do not think it means what you think it means. Someone who has all 13+ stats is above average in every stat, not mediocre in every stat.

Crow
2008-07-02, 04:46 PM
I think he meant mediocre in comparison to the expected optimization standards of D&D.

I liked it better when a high stat was a nice bonus, rather than a requirement.

RTGoodman
2008-07-02, 04:59 PM
Yeah, I'm speaking optimization-wise.

Also, 13 can be pretty mediocre if most of the other heroes (which is what 4E is about) have superhuman scores in at least one or two scores (or more if you roll for stats, though I don't know how many people/groups use that method for 4E).

Jayabalard
2008-07-02, 05:17 PM
Also, 13 can be pretty mediocre if most of the other heroes (which is what 4E is about) have superhuman scores in at least one or two scores (or more if you roll for stats, though I don't know how many people/groups use that method for 4E).Nope, not mediocre. It's above the mean of most of those stat arrays, and is right at the median of most of them as well. It's well above the average if you roll 4d6dl. Its heroically slightly-above-average... not heroically mediocre.

Artanis
2008-07-02, 05:22 PM
Nope, not mediocre. It's above the mean of most of those stat arrays, and is right at the median of most of them as well. It's well above the average if you roll 4d6dl. Its heroically slightly-above-average... not heroically mediocre.
Having a higher average score doesn't mean it's better in practice. Why do you think an 18 costs more in point-buy than two 14s?

Totally Guy
2008-07-03, 02:56 AM
Thanks. I'm not sure if you got all of them (anyone want to check?), but if you did, here's a layout I find easier to read. Sorted ascending.



Ah I get it. The optimist looks at the higest stat first. The pessimist looks at the lowest first.

If an optimist optimises does a pessimist pessimise a character?

Jayabalard
2008-07-03, 08:41 AM
Having a higher average score doesn't mean it's better in practice. Why do you think an 18 costs more in point-buy than two 14s?I didn't say that it does. I'm simply saying that "six mediocre stats" is not accurate because he's misusing the word "mediocre". All of the score in that 14,14,14,14,14,13 array are above the mean and at/above the median scores for heroic characters. a character with that array has 6 slightly above average stats. Mediocre scores would be on the poor side, not on the high side of average for heroic characters.

You can feel free to argue over whether 6 slightly above average stats makes an overall mediocre character... but that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.