[4E] 16 or 18?

[Hal]

This is sparked by my thread on building a dwarven warlord. There seems to be some debate as to what you lose when your character starts with a 16 in a primary stat rather than an 18.

For example, a character with a 16 (+3) and a +3 proficiency weapon has +6 to attack. I'm not sure what average ACs are at the earliest levels, but I recall them being in the 16-18 range. That sounds about right.

So what are the thoughts here? What do you lose with a 16 instead of an 18?

[Kurald Galain]

There seems to be some debate as to what you lose when your character starts with a 16 in a primary stat rather than an 18.

Considering the vast majority of powers in 4E depend on hitting stuff, it makes your character more effective if you can hit more often.

That means yes, start with an 18, or if possible, a 20; and yes, do use that +3 proficiency weapon; and yes, do try to flank as often as possible. Thing is, it really is better to become really good at one thing, than to try and keep all your bases covered; that means that most builds really only need two attributes at a decent level, or possibly three, and can safely dump the three or four other ability scores. So yes, you do have the points.

What do you lose? Not much, really. You might be unable to access certain feats, but there are very few feats that are worth investing in attributes for (unless you're already investing in those attributes for another reason). You might be a bit less skilled, but in general the only relevant skill is the best in the group: if the ranger has +10 nature, it won't matter whether you have +4 or +5.

In my first 4E group, I played a rogue that eventually managed to hit things on a natural 2. In the same group, we had a constitution-based fighter that thought it'd be okay to have a 14 in strength, who spent most of the campaign being annoyed at how often she missed.

4E is a team game. Don't try to be good at everything, because you can't. Instead, be good at just a few things, and depend on your team for the rest.

[LibraryOgre]

With 4e, it's not about cost, it's about opportunity cost.

It is worth what you lose to get that +1?

For example, I'm playing a Dwarven Resourceful Warlord with a 17 Strength (he's 7th level). Had I gone with an 18 Strength, I could've hit a bit more often and done a bit more damage... but I wouldn't have been able to swing a 16 Charisma and 14 Intelligence at 7th level... and several of my powers are increased by having a good bonus on those two. I am more effective at helping out my party if I have a good charisma and intelligence.

[Drakefall]

My first character in my current campaign was a half-elf wizard with 18 int and to be honest he was on the very edge of "if I hit any less than I am now I will be sad". In the 3-4 sessions he was alive his dailies missed all but once. I do put a lot of this down to poor dice rolls on my part but a +1 probably would've helped.

I now have a 20 str genasi fighter and his hit ratio is far from bad... though for some reason not as consistent as the barbarian who has never missed on his encounter power. That same barbarian also fails to get surrounded and beaten up, rather somehow being able to go one on one with enemies and utterly destroy them, making the rest of us look bad. Although he one time he did get surrounded by orcs it was pretty hilarious. The character and player are both actually cool guys, just too damn lucky. End of rant.

So as you can see by my examples that were totally not rantings and were really helpful aids in this discussion, having an 18-20 in your main stat is generally a very good idea. Even a warlord needs to hit to help his party members most of the time. However, a 16 is far from character ruining. In a warlord's case it would generally mean better effects when your powers hit and you can always boost strength as you level up. With weapon expertise and dwarven weapon training you could still be hitting a completely acceptable amount of the time AND dealing some nice damage and giving awesome effects when you do. Whichever way you go your character should be fine. It's basically consistency vs effect.

EDIT: Weapon expertise is NOT weapon finesse... bad Drakefall!

[Hzurr]

I agree that having a 16 is far from character ruining, and there are easily ways to mitigate that. For example, if you use a +3 prof weapon, your to-hit bonuses will be the same as someone who has an 18 in his/her stat, and uses a +2 weapon, which people do all the time.

If you're really worried about hitting things, then just take a couple of steps to mitigate (like the aforementioned +3 prof weapon, taking weapon expertise or Dwarven weapon training).

Also, remember that those characters who have a 20 in a stat are often paying for it somewhere else. We have a barbarian in our group with a 20 strength, but because of this, his stats that modify his Reflex and Will defenses are crap. If you go with a 16 stat, that leaves more room to spread out those other points to stats that can keep you from having a glaring weak point like Barbarian.

[Yakk]

I could have sworn I answered this question.

A +1 to your main attack is worth about 18% more damage and 6% more status-effect fun, with reasonable assumptions at level 1.

The damage edge fades as you gain levels, down towards ~6%.

This assumes hits do 4 times as much damage and effects as misses do, on an average attack. And naturally this varies heavily by your class / etc.

[TheEmerged]

Varies by class, in my experience. For a fighter, wizard, or "laser" cleric, for example, the benefit of starting with an 18 (20 for some races) in the key stat is too strong to pass up. Also, depending on what you're doing about multiclassing, you may find the 16/16 more useful.

For other classes -- rogue comes to mind -- it's more a matter of taste and intent. The rogue in our party went Brutal Scoundrel and went 16/16 for Str/Dex before race, and has no complaints. Of course the rogue is using a +4 proficiency weapon most of the time and therefore has the best base attack roll in the party, so YMMV.

[ColdSepp]

Get an 18. You need to hit in 4E, and Weapon Expertise only corrects an existing problem of how AC scales faster then AB.

20 is generally two expensive, unless that stat effects many things. Of course, if you don't have a race with a bonus to your classes primary stat, your in trouble, do to the cost. But in general, 16 +2 racial is the best choice.

[Crow]

Get the 18. Your powers need you to hit, and a 16 will mean that you will waste roughly 5% more of your powers over the career of the character...barring reliable powers.

[TheOOB]

Accuracy is very important, but it is not the only thing that is important to most characters. Getting an 18 before racial mods is tough, and your other stats will suffer because of it. With an 18, you can either have 1 14, or 2 12's, which will weaken powers secondary effects, make your defenses worse, and lowering skills, not to mention making it harder to qualify for many feats.

On the other hand, a 16 in your main stat allows for a 16 and a 12(great for two attack stat classes like paladin and warlock), or two 14's and a 12(which is one of the most balanced builds in the game.

So, if you take an 18, you are giving up about 2-3 points of modifiers in other ability's. For some classes and builds, that is workable. Wizards and archery rangers, for example, just want their int and dex to be as high as possible. Giving them a base 16 makes them more versatile and well rounded, but an 18 base is workable if you want to be really focused.

[Arbitrarity]

I think people are overrating the 18 before racial mods. The typical "controller" wizard is thought to be possibly better as an elf. 8, 10, 14, 18, 16, 12, are fairly typical starting stats as an eladrin.
Really, I think the 7! points aren't worth it. Most of the time you really need a secondary stat or two. Do we play warlords with 18 strength before racials? Probably not. Clerics can afford it. Chaladins, OK. Rogues, quite often. But many MAD classes still can't afford a straight 18, without serious losses.

On the other hand, we have a level dwarven paladin with 16 strength and cha. With a +1 craghammer, he trails the rest of the party by two points or so, and combined with lousy rolls, he whiffs most of his attacks, annoyingly against first level minions. (this may also be due to the DM liking higher level monsters)

[Asbestos]

My thoughts:

20- Too expensive, generally not worth it. Expertise and +3 weapons are not needed here.

18- The 'sweetspot', feel free to use a +2 weapon. Feel free to pick up an Expertise feat if you don't desire something more general/utilitarian.

16- Totally acceptable for a weapon user but you'll be limited to +3 weapons, not well advised if you're an implement user that doesn't target Will. Look into the appropriate Expertise feat.

14- You're doing it wrong.

Yes, 4e is about hitting things, but with a 16, weapon expertise, a +3 weapon, and decent tactics you'll be hitting things often enough.

Edit: In the thread discussing the Expertise feats Talic explains the benefits, better than I ever could, in regards of having a higher to-hit. Here's the post. My thought is though... its more fun to miss every now and then than to almost be sure that every time I roll a dice I'll hit something.

[Kurald Galain]

I think people are overrating the 18 before racial mods. The typical "controller" wizard is thought to be possibly better as an elf.

Only on the charop boards, and only on high paragon/epic tier, and only until a couple months ago (since WOTC printed a bunch of other things to impose save penalties, all of which stack ATM, so a high wis is no longer needed).


Anyway, you shouldn't be thinking "OMG an 18 sure is expensive!!", you should be wondering what else you're going to be spending stat points on. Because if you don't have great ideas for that, it's kind of a waste. And no, boosting some skills from +1 to +2 isn't going to cut it, mechanically speaking, and neither is boosting your lowest defense by +1.

There are a few things that do cut it, but they aren't many.

[Myatar_Panwar]

I think a 16 is just fine, your not going to be a total drag for your party or anything.

Plus, if you are only willing to put a 16 (or 14 if you have a racial mod) into your core ability stat, then chances are you have a high or equal secondary modifier as well as a nice tertiary modifier, which can bring uses in other ways beyond hitting stuff.

[Oracle_Hunter]

I could have sworn I answered this question.

A +1 to your main attack is worth about 18% more damage and 6% more status-effect fun, with reasonable assumptions at level 1.

The damage edge fades as you gain levels, down towards ~6%.

This assumes hits do 4 times as much damage and effects as misses do, on an average attack. And naturally this varies heavily by your class / etc.

It should also be noted that a large number of Warlord powers do not need to hit to cause their effect.

[Mando Knight]

Anyway, you shouldn't be thinking "OMG an 18 sure is expensive!!", you should be wondering what else you're going to be spending stat points on. Because if you don't have great ideas for that, it's kind of a waste. And no, boosting some skills from +1 to +2 isn't going to cut it, mechanically speaking, and neither is boosting your lowest defense by +1.

There are a few things that do cut it, but they aren't many.

Precisely... like for a Strength Paladin using a sword: you need Dexterity to qualify for Heavy Blade Opportunity (which in turn is really awesome for Champions of Order, whose mark provokes OAs when attacking someone else while within melee reach), Wisdom for secondary effects, Constitution to stay alive, and Charisma to make your Divine Challenge actually hurt. Thus, a Dragonborn Paladin could easily get away with only a total of 16 in both main stats while remaining effective and qualifying for a good handful of secondary effects.

However, a Genasi Swordmage only needs Intelligence and a bit of Strength, with the possibility of pumping a bit of what's left into Wisdom or Charisma to help his Will Defense. If he does so, he can easily spend the points to get 20 Intelligence, since he doesn't need the other stats as much. Sure, Constitution helps for HP and a few other effects, Dexterity lets you qualify for Heavy Blade Opportunity, and so on, but most of those can be covered by careful power and feat selection, and use of the correct background. (if playing with backgrounds...)

[Ninetail]

Depends on your class, but in general, you don't lose too much by starting with a 16 instead of an 18. By which I mean, it's usually salvageable, if suboptimal. (14, on the other hand, is too low.)

If you can, it's best to have an 18 in your primary attack stat. You do see the difference. This can be accomplished cheaply with the right races (16 + 2 racial), or expensively with the less-optimized ones.

With the optimal races, you can also get a 20, expensively, in your primary stat. This is not necessarily as good an idea as you'd think it is. Most MAD classes are better off in the long run stopping at 18 and having stronger secondary stats.

A dwarf warlord is about as non-optimal as it gets, since dwarves don't get racial bonuses to Str, Int, or Cha. Fortunately, non-optimal means a lot less in 4e than it did in 3e, and you can still make the character viable.

Basically, you need to decide whether you can live with a 14 and 11 (or a 13 and 13) in your secondary and tertiary stat of choice. If you can, you might as well go for the 18 Str. This will mean your Cha or Int-based effects (including your Commanding Presence) are relatively weak, and your Con will be average at best (though your racial will help there, you should be able to squeeze at least a 12 after the adjustment).

If you go for the 16 Str, you can get a second 16 to place in your secondary of choice and still have enough points for a 12. Or, you can get two 14s and a 12. This character will have stronger effects, and will be able to use both Int- and Cha-boosted powers reasonably well. However, you'll need to optimize your hit chances a little -- for instance, you'll probably want to stick to weapons with a +3 proficiency bonus. That would eliminate polearms, which are pretty useful to warlords.

[holywhippet]

It should also be noted that a large number of Warlord powers do not need to hit to cause their effect.

True, but if you don't hit, you aren't doing damage. If you aren't doing damage then the monsters are going to live longer. Since every monster (generally) fights at 100% of it's capabilities (in some cases even harder when bloodied) then by not doing damage you are prolonging the fight and making things harder for your party.

Unless you have been given extra points for your build, I'd skip 20 strength but aim for 18.

My dragonborn warlord has 18 strength, but even still things can be hard. For our first battle our GM threw our level 1 party against a pair of chillborn zombies. Even bloodied and with a flanking bonus I still needed at least a 12 (IIRC) to hit.

[Asbestos]

My dragonborn warlord has 18 strength, but even still things can be hard. For our first battle our GM threw our level 1 party against a pair of chillborn zombies. Even bloodied and with a flanking bonus I still needed at least a 12 (IIRC) to hit.

Dude, he threw out soldiers (you know, the sort of monster that has the highest AC for their level) that were 5 levels higher than the party. Of course that's going to be a pain to hit.

[holywhippet]

Dude, he threw out soldiers (you know, the sort of monster that has the highest AC for their level) that were 5 levels higher than the party. Of course that's going to be a pain to hit.

Yep, and he has indicated that's how he is planning to run the campaign - few high level monsters instead of swarms of low levels. We did run into some crawling claws in the next fight, but they got nuked in no time at all. My point stands, you want to maximise your odds of hitting - especially since warlord powers generally don't have the reliable keyword. Bastion of defence still gives temp HP when it misses for example, but the extra 3W damage would be much better.

[Asbestos]

Yep, and he has indicated that's how he is planning to run the campaign - few high level monsters instead of swarms of low levels. We did run into some crawling claws in the next fight, but they got nuked in no time at all. My point stands, you want to maximise your odds of hitting - especially since warlord powers generally don't have the reliable keyword. Bastion of defence still gives temp HP when it misses for example, but the extra 3W damage would be much better.

Yes, but what I'm saying is that your example is pretty non-standard. Monsters 5 levels higher than the party is not the norm.

[Oracle_Hunter]

True, but if you don't hit, you aren't doing damage. If you aren't doing damage then the monsters are going to live longer. Since every monster (generally) fights at 100% of it's capabilities (in some cases even harder when bloodied) then by not doing damage you are prolonging the fight and making things harder for your party.

Unless you have been given extra points for your build, I'd skip 20 strength but aim for 18.

My dragonborn warlord has 18 strength, but even still things can be hard. For our first battle our GM threw our level 1 party against a pair of chillborn zombies. Even bloodied and with a flanking bonus I still needed at least a 12 (IIRC) to hit.

Something tells me that needing a 13 to hit wouldn't have been much better

The important thing about Warlords is that they're really not the "damage dealers" of the party. Being able to Wolf Pack the party Rogue into flanking is much more important than the 1d10 you might do if you hit. For CHA Lords in particular, all of the Healing Surges they can trip has a much larger impact than doing even 2d10 with an Encounter power.

[holywhippet]

Yes, they aren't meant to be damage machines. But enough of their powers either only have an effect if they hit or an extra effect if they hit that you really want to be hitting as often as possible. I mentioned bastion of defence above - it's decentish even if misses because it hands out temporary HP. But if it hits it does damage and gives a bonus to all defences until the end of the fight.

[Nefarion Xid]

A few classes are plagued with reasons to not start with less than a 20 in their primary stat - Swordmages, Wizards, Archer Rangers, Rogues I know for sure. These guys all attack and get AC and Reflexes from the same stat...and get precious little from anything else.

Take the Swordmage. Intelligence gives him AC, Reflexes, Attack and Damage bonuses. The book happens to tell you that Strength is important; it's not. As I remember, it only modifies a handful of your powers, most in unspectacular ways. Starting with a 13 in Str and Con will get you Hide Armor before level 4. And the rest of your stats are simply unimportant. Dex is only good for things like Arcane Reach; but I'd say the cost is far more than the return there. A little in Wisdom is great if you want to play a Wandering Swordmage...who look pretty fun honestly. Charisma is tanked as usual.

I'd like to have a few more points to throw around...buuut even in a game that's heavy on roleplaying, I'll take that +1 to everything-I-do-in-combat rather than scrounging up a sliver of a bonus to my Bluff and Diplomacy checks. I'm all for wacky or diverse builds, but there's just no way I'd play a swordmage without a 20 in Int starting out. And yes, that rules out all races without a +2 Int bonus.

Warlords, Fighters, Paladins, Clerics...well these guys look a little more MAD to me. Take the Warlord, he gets all kinds of goodies from Strength, Intelligence and Charisma...he can use all three to some effect. Granted, I've never played any of these classes, but I know I want my warlord to come to the party with a +3 Int bonus!

[Kurald Galain]

even in a game that's heavy on roleplaying, I'll take that +1 to everything-I-do-in-combat rather than scrounging up a sliver of a bonus to my Bluff and Diplomacy checks.

That's a good point. You get so much more out of specializing than out of trying to diversify.

[Oslecamo]

(if playing with backgrounds...)

Backgrounds are basically a free feat, and sometimes even better than that. I don't know how many DMs will allow them but the ones more worried with balances will probably limit them.

The one that lets you use your main stat for calculating starting HP, for example, means you can say "screw CON" and actually get away with it. That 20 int wizard is much more scary when he has more than 30 HP at 1st level with a con of only 10.

So basically the more power creep your DM allows the better that initial 18-20 looks since you'll get more and more ways to min-max.