You could also drop speed and make agility and it could handle both attack speed and crit strike %.

How would I go about that mathematically? Remember, by the end of the game, speed or agility will be 14x-28x what it is at the start, assuming speed or agility is an ability that increases with level. Luck, on the other hand, won't increase with level but may increase slightly other ways.

One option is to make the character's level a factor in certain calculations, like critical hit rate, so that for example a level 1 character with 5 agility has a higher critical hit rate than a level 10 character with 5 agility. Essentially, such things become based on a comparison between the character's actual stat and the expected/average stat value for their level.

Another option is "opposed" stat checks, where one of the enemy's stats is a factor in the calulation - for example, the critical hit chance being based on how the character's agility compares to the enemy's.

A third possibility is some form of logarithmic relation between core stats and derived stats, meaning that e.g. the higher one's agility gets, the less each point increases one's critical hit rate. (For example, let's say the chance of a critical hit is equal to (2+ln(agility+1))%; in this case, even with 0 agility, a character will still have a 2% chance to crit, but would need 2 agility for a 3% chance, 7 agility for 4%, 20 agility for 5%, and a staggering 2980 agility to reach a 10% critical rate.)

I can fix the static attack problem by adding a 10% fluctuation in damage. However, this means at the beginning of the game, attacks will always be the same, since you only do 2-3 damage and can't do 2.2-3.3, so I'll have to make the fluctuation 50% at the beginning of the game and decrease it over time.

You can give a character a minimum attack and a maximum attacks.

Or instead transfer all randoms stats to items;

meaning a character has 2 attack and his sword adds 0-1 to his attack.

I like the small number and "staticness" on the lower levels but I really believe that the luck factor can totaly fuck it up. When you are dealing with these small number tactics will play a huge role in combat, adding luck to that will only make the players frustrated. Thats what happened to the first game I released on PSP Mini, it was a slow turnbased tactical combat game with long, LOOOONG fights and with close to perfect balance (almost like chess). But we had a attribute called luck which doubled everything in the game if you rolled it when doing a action, it could totaly shift the power from one player to the other even if the other player had total dominance for the majority of the game. Sure it was fun when we were developing it, screaming curses at each other when someone lucked out, but the more we played the more we found out that it was more frustrating then fun.

There is a reason they removed dodge from League of Legends

Cheers!

@Deadghost GreenGrass: there is a difference between adding 10-20% luck and 100% luck
(in one 5k0% of the damage is luc the other is 9%-18%)

Ofcourse, but luck has no place in a tactical game is what I am trying to say. Crits on the other hand is not luck per say, because you can counter it with say armor.

Let me put it like this, it was not luck that made it so easy for the German army to enter France so easily during WW2, it was because of the stupidity on the French side (look up "Maginot Line").

What I mean with this is that people may say "oh they were lucky!" but no, it's never luck, it's always the stupidity on the opposing side that leads to the so called "luck".

Another example. It's not luck if you manage to kill a sectopod in x-com with one blast from your heavy plasma, it's was the choice by the commander to arm all the soldiers with heavy plasma, he or she made his or hers own luck.

What im trying to say is that everything that happens in battle, success or failure, should always, 100% of the time, be the commanders triumph or fuck up, never "just lucky".

I think I spinned of alittle to much there .

Cheers!