The question I had wasn't how the one is better than the other. I included the reasoning in my original post. The question was how so many people could grasp the significance of a +1 and then turn around and dismiss the significance of a +2.
If the choice is between one or the other, the +1 is the choice that will average out to be better in the long run... but whether to take a race with "optimal stats" and whether or not to take a sure/careful attack power for your second at-will power are two separate questions.
(And for the matter of bad math, I'm not sure anyone acknowledged the bad math involved in saying that a difference of 2 in effective AC means getting ten percent more hits. It's more likely to be in the neighborhoof of a 33%-50% difference in hits, depending on where you are on the RNG.
Oh except that's not accurate because everyone's pushing the top off the RNG because there's no reason to not take a Cleric and use Righteous Brand. Except when you're an Archery Ranger. Except when you're an Orbizard. Except when you're a whatever the fighter builds are that are supposed to be such juggernauts. Except when you're the trapper cleric.
There are so many classes that there's no reason for anyone not to be, I don't know how you enlightened folks know how to keep up with it.
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/smileyellow.gif)
With encounters of varying size, against varying monsters, on varying terrains... you'll get edge scenarios where it's more important to hit than it is to get the extra damage ("Cloud of Daggers", someone says... but aren't we all supposed to be Trapper Clerics?), you'll get places where the optimal targeting algorithm can only work when you break it down by party member because they can't all pick from the same targets.
Roy keeps saying "Oberoni, Oberoni, Oberoni", but as I understand it, that fallacy means that someone is suggesting a houserule to fix a problem and then saying that means the problem doesn't exist... the only houserule I've even mentioned in this discussion had to do with my dislike of the way magic items work with throwing, and I wasn't positing that to fix a flaw in the system, I was saying I disliked a rule of marginal mechanical consequences.
Suggesting that encounters will include varied terrain, interesting encounters, combining two encounters into one, mixing traps and encounters isn't invoking Rule 0, it's following the guidelines in the DMG. We can disagree about whether these guidelines are part of the game design or not (though I find it odd to assume that we have to throw out half of one of the core books as not being part of the game), but it isn't Oberoni to go with the assumption that the DM in an actual campaign will be mixing things up instead of spoonfeeding encounters designed to show off builds.