Generation of Stats

[Stefan Hill]

Hi,

I have been playing 4e with basically the same group. The DM seems to like the idea of the set stats (i.e. 8, 10, 10, 13, 13, 18 - is that right?).

The set stat thing while initially having had me nearly have to bite my tongue doesn't seem so bad now. However it does seems to mean that if you don't have 20 in your prime stat you aren't that useful.

Just wondering what people think of this? Given two people playing the same class you sort of end up with "cookie cutter" ability scores. Now I know PC's aren't just ability scores and I'll be first to support an argument for that point.

So my query is, what method do people use for stats and perhaps why?

Cheers,
S.

[Logos]

Method 1 from the phb fixed stats for everyone (I think its 16,14,13,12,11,10 from the book )

Don't miss the old system.

[Morgen]

18 is generally considered to be the most powerful you need in a stat. Just make sure that you put the 16 in the important stat you need to hit with for your class abilities and pick a race that gives that stat a +2 and you'll be fine.

Pick up the expertise (errata) feats and you'll have a decent to hit.

Yeah, lots of similar coolie cuter characters in the world, you've only got so much to pick from.

[Celestial Healer]

I've always used the point buy. And the table in the PHB is a great shortcut to get some sample point buy arrays. That gives you some flexibility. I don't think I would like being told my six scores...

[Jezred]

We have always used the point-buy system, using the chart in PHB 1 as a guideline for "default arrays".

Have an 18 in the primary stat (after racial bonus, if any) is usually sufficient for the current game. I have played with a 16 in my primary stat(s) and been okay; that 5% “penalty” to attack rolls is only a minor setback. Before PHB2, I played a half-elf fighter/wizard who has 16s in his STR and INT. He still had decent attack rolls, but he also had a lot of flexibility due to Dilettante and multi-classing. This was before the Expertise feats; now-a-days he would be even more effective.

Those who choose to start with a 20 in the primary stat (after racial bonuses) are a bit “uber” in combat and very inflexible or less useful in many situations. I don’t recommend it.

[Steve Geddes]

I'm an absolute 4th edition beginner, however I have a habit of playing characters with weird stat allocations and can comment a little based on any number of rulesets over the years.

Personally, I think people get hung up on the necessity of maxing out the prime stats. I think this is because, regardless of the rules you use, at low levels the extra bonuses from lifting the stat is a significant boost and so seems "non-negotiable". However by the time you've gone up a few levels - the extra +1 or +2 to hit and damage is hardly noticeable. In contrast - gaining a stat bonus in an area your class is not likely to shine in can produce a character with at least a passable skill in a hobby/sideline which is otherwise unachievable as a specialist.

Granted I like my characters to be like real life people and develop them based on what makes sense at the time, rather than as a prerequisite for something I'm going to want later. (How many of us were making choices at 15 and 16 based on what "feat" we were planning on attaining at age 30?) Consequently, I accept a loss in effectiveness which might be annoying to both you and your fellow players (who may accuse you of not pulling your weight through stupid build decisions).

Just an admittedly tangential thought.

[FabesMinis]

Whereas I want to play a character, who, unlike me, did make the right choices at certain points.

I am in a great place now, but I know I could have done some things differently.

/tangent

[Steve Geddes]

FabesMinis wrote:

Whereas I want to play a character, who, unlike me, did make the right choices at certain points.

I am in a great place now, but I know I could have done some things differently.

/tangent

Yeah - dont get me wrong, I dont mean everyone should play suboptimal characters just because I do. :)

Regardless, I think it's worth noting that with regard to optimising your stat choices, the +1 you gain from an 18 instead of a 16 for your "prime stat" (or a 20 instead of an 18) seems important early, but becomes less and less relevant through the majority of the time you're playing the character. I think this is especially true in 4th edition given the inherent level adjustment, plus the scaling of powers. (My experience stopping at 2nd level though - so bear that in mind).

[Matthew Koelbl]

Steve Geddes wrote:

Granted I like my characters to be like real life people and develop them based on what makes sense at the time, rather than as a prerequisite for something I'm going to want later. (How many of us were making choices at 15 and 16 based on what "feat" we were planning on attaining at age 30?) Consequently, I accept a loss in effectiveness which might be annoying to both you and your fellow players (who may accuse you of not pulling your weight through stupid build decisions).

Though in truth, that is one of the things I love the most about 4E - the ability to live from level to level relatively easily. Planning ahead isn't gone entirely, especially with stat generation and the occasionally odd stat requirements for some feats - but in 3rd Edition, I know I would stay up for hours plotting out my character's 'career', calculating what feats I needed to take to quality for prestige classes, what ranks I needed to purchase at precisely each level, and so forth... and while, honestly, I often enjoyed doning so, I do prefer being able to just make those decisions as I go. Both because I can now base them on the current needs of the party, the current events my character is undergoing, and what might make the most sense based on their recent performance in the game.

In general, my character's do tend towards the upper end of stats - I have more than a few with 18s or 20s in their starting stats, though I think this is more due to the specific characters I've been playing and several of them happening to be more focused in personality than normal. I know in 3rd I tend to either have completely well-rounded stats, or completely min/maxed stats - again, depending on character.

I do feel like a great number of different builds and approaches to character generation are entirely viable, and one needs to really go out of their way to build a deliberately subpar character. There is plenty of room to focus entirely on character and thematic elements, and still pretty much automatically end up with a capable character in the field.

[Jeremy Mac Donald]

It also strikes me as pretty character dependent. My best stat for my cleric is wisdom and thats with the racial bonus. That said my cleric does not have to hit to be useful and has four stats that effect the build significantly so a more well rounded character was a very viable choice.