Stat boosts, overrated?

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Hello Playground,

Let me start by saying that stat boosts are lovely, and in no-variant games they're all you have. But in CharOp guides, where feats are often assumed to be available, I almost always see the advice to maximize your offensive stat first, then go for feats. So when I say stat boosts are overrated, what I really mean is that taking feats early is underrated.

I'm going to assume point buy or array, and obviously that feats are available. I'll also take a favorable case - I admit some classes/builds really do benefit much more from stat increases.

Cool tricks earlier
Take Polearm Master + Sentinel on a strength-based character. A (non-variant-human) a Paladin could wait until level 16 for this to come online after maximizing Strength. At a generous 1 level per 2 long game sessions, that's 32 long game sessions before your trick arrives, and by that point baddies often have crazy reach or some way around you.

DPR, at least sometimes

Also, consider a Paladin 4 GWF style with 16 starting strength fighting with a glaive, choosing Polearm Master or +2 STR.

Without any other buffs, the Polearm Master attacks at +6 for 1d10+3 and then +6 for 1d4+3, rerolling 1s and 2s. Without smiting, divine favor, or any other buffs, that's something ranging from 10-15DPR depending on AC. In the same range, without buffs, the +2 STR paladin gets 6-10DPR.

Of course, the polearm master is using up his bonus actions. So let's say the STRaladin gets to use Hunter's Mark without caring about the bonus actions, while the Polearm Master has to use Divine Favor for less damage. In this case the STRaladin whacks harder in the first round, but after that the DPR advantage is still firmly in the PM camp.

Once you get to level 5 things change in favor of the +2 STR, and of course you get other benefits from having high strength. But, you also get more benefits from having Polearm Master. For instance, you get to OA more often, which is hard to calculate into DPR but quite relevant.

Most importantly, Feats are more fun (for me)
If you're choosing between something like Resilient: CON and +2STR, one gives you a little more of what you already do, and the other lets you keep your character alive and kickin'. If you're choosing between Polearm Master/Sentinel and +4 STR, you're choosing between an interesting set of tricks and probably, ultimately, a bit more DPR doing things the same way. Which one is more fun depends on the user, but I like options, and taking good feats doesn't seem to hurt too much in the DPR department.

[Rummy]

I tend to agree. Get the Neato tricks first, then max stats. Also, a variant human starting with Heavy Armor Master is rather tanky.

[hymer]

Well, I don't think there's an overriding sense that all characters should go for max stat before going for feats. Not even two characters of the same class need have the same drive. I suggest Land Druids to go for maximum wisdom first and then look to other options, while I suggest that Moon Druids merely ensure that their wisdom is 20 at level 16, and instead start with grabbing some featy goodies to use in their wild shape.
That said, I think a lot of characters who specialize in killing stuff, it can be hard for even the fun options to compete with +1 to-hit and damage. And for people like rogues, who also get +1 initiative, +1 AC, +1 dex save and +1 to some key skills/proficiencies, well... A feat better be pretty four-letter-word good to compete with all that.

[OldTrees1]

I believe we will see more feats over time. As this occurs, more feats will be taken before characters go straight ability increases.

[Strill]

Cool tricks earlier[/B]
Take Polearm Master + Sentinel on a strength-based character. A (non-variant-human) a Paladin could wait until level 16 for this to come online after maximizing Strength. At a generous 1 level per 2 long game sessions, that's 32 long game sessions before your trick arrives, and by that point baddies often have crazy reach or some way around you.

It's easy to say that, but Polearm Master is probably the most powerful offensive feat in the game. I don't think that's a particularly accurate comparison. IMO we need to see more weapon specialization feats come out before we can make any conclusions like this.

Two Weapon Master, for contrast, is worse than +2 DEX.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

It's good to see that the guides (especially on the WotC forums) may not be representative of everyone's opinions on the matter. However, I have seen debates on, for instance, whether monks should maximize two stats before taking feats. That sounds sad and boring. I also agree that dex-focused characters have much more to love about ability increases, and hard casters have a little less to love about feats... so far.

It's easy to say that, but Polearm Master is probably the most powerful offensive feat in the game. I don't think that's a particularly accurate comparison. IMO we need to see more weapon specialization feats come out before we can make any conclusions like this.

Two Weapon Master, for contrast, is worse than +2 DEX.So, ability score increases are worse than the best feats, better than crappy feats, and about as good as decent feats (+2 DEX or Defensive Duelist on a dexy sword n boarder doesn't have one right answer). That's good; it means that character creation can be quite interesting for folks like me, but people who want a simple build won't fall too far behind.

[Finieous]

(+2 DEX or Defensive Duelist on a dexy sword n boarder doesn't have one right answer).

Well, it seems to have one right answer early in the game. +1 AC, +1 attack, +1 damage, +1 initiative, +1 Dex save and +1 on Dex skill checks is better than using your reaction to get +2 AC on a melee attack only.

In general, though, I agree that good feats are pretty well balanced with effective ability score increases. There are tough decisions to make when you're growing a character organically from level 1.

[MeeposFire]

Actually I think the bounded accuracy mechanic makes ability score increases less needed (though you still should grab a few of course). I do think that many treat them like this was 3e or 4e where you needed to get the highest ability scores possible in order to keep ahead of (or stay on) the curve but that is not as much the case here. In addition in those editions you maxed out your important stats because otherwise you are spending those points on less useful ability scores (which only results in small increases to less important abilities) but in this edition if you don't use them on your ability score of choice you are probably picking up an interesting and powerful ability which may actually be worth the lack of bonus to an ability score especially a secondary or tertiary score (such as con for a number of classes).

For example a ranged ranger is trying to choose between getting a feat or boosting his con. Con is always useful but I think the ranger could make a very good case for a bunch of feats being as good or better than picking up more con especially on a ranged ranger who may not need that con as much as a melee focused character.

[Ghost Nappa]

Well, it seems to have one right answer early in the game. +1 AC, +1 attack, +1 damage, +1 initiative, +1 Dex save and +1 on Dex skill checks is better than using your reaction to get +2 AC on a melee attack only.

In general, though, I agree that good feats are pretty well balanced with effective ability score increases. These are tough decisions to make when you're growing a character organically from level 1.

Especially if you have a number of sub-par stats that are holding you back. If you roll extremely well, then you're better off grabbing feats.

But if you only roll average or such...
These are tough decisions to make when you're growing a character organically from level 1.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

A corollary to my original idea is that Variant Human might be gold (as opposed to sky blue in almost every guide) for many classes/builds.
Actually I think the bounded accuracy mechanic makes ability score increases less needed *snip*In 3e you pumped a stat because you could make it apply to everything twice, and you could replace your other stats easily enough. I'm not aware of much 3e or 4e content where this kind of dilemma has existed, since you couldn't trade out ability increases in those editions IIRC. I also don't see how bounded accuracy makes these marginal increases less valuable. If anything they're more valuable because they're more rare - just not as valuable as all the WotC character guides make them out to be.
Well, it seems to have one right answer early in the game. +1 AC, +1 attack, +1 damage, +1 initiative, +1 Dex save and +1 on Dex skill checks is better than using your reaction to get +2 AC on a melee attack only.At first level +2 dex competes with the feats you'll be taking first - something like Sentinel, Shield Master, Alert, Lucky, or some other nice feat I missed. Once you level up a bit, and that proficiency bonus starts stacking up, it becomes a worthwhile trade. Also notice that for a character whose main stat is anything but dex the trade off skews significantly into the favor of feats.
Especially if you have a number of sub-par stats that are holding you back. If you roll extremely well, then you're better off grabbing feats.

But if you only roll average or such...The baseline here was array or PB, but if you roll like crap you may need to shore up your attack stat just to contribute. I haven't run the math on that, but there is probably some set of terrible rolls where +2 STR beats Polearm Master, for instance. A nice DM might let you re-roll them, but I did not see any official "modifiers must be greater than X" rule in 5e. Maybe I missed it, or maybe it's coming out in December.

[silveralen]

It depends alot on the stat, class, and feat in question. If it is something like strength, where you don't gain much in the way of ability check bonuses or saving throws, a feat that boots your raw damage more is often a better choice. If you cast off charisma and are the face of your party in a skill check heavy campaign, or have wisdom/dexterity as your main combat stat and ever roll saving throws, that stat bonus does a lot for your beyond just boosting your combat skill.

Some feats are great for shoring up a weakness. Always end up going last in combat? Alert might be better than just boosting your damage. Elemental adept is practically a must have hen you reach higher levels for your favorite element. The feats which give you a +1 are also easier to work into a character, depending on how your party generates their stats of course.

In general I think stat bonuses are the right way to go, but there are exceptions.

[MadBear]

This is one thing I actually really like about 5e. The choice between a feat and an ability increase is a close call. In this regard it means that no one feels cheated in their choice. Sure you want a cool ability you can have it, but your friend is now stronger then you. Ok, you're now the most agile person possible, but Average Joe can spot an assassin coming from a mile away.

So I don't think that stat boosts are overrated, I just think that they're not so good as to overshadow feats, and visa versa.

[Finieous]

(+2 DEX or Defensive Duelist on a dexy sword n boarder doesn't have one right answer).



Well, it seems to have one right answer early in the game. +1 AC, +1 attack, +1 damage, +1 initiative, +1 Dex save and +1 on Dex skill checks is better than using your reaction to get +2 AC on a melee attack only.




At first level +2 dex competes with the feats you'll be taking first - something like Sentinel, Shield Master, Alert, Lucky, or some other nice feat I missed. Once you level up a bit, and that proficiency bonus starts stacking up, it becomes a worthwhile trade.


I can't tell if we agree or disagree.

The "Dexy sword n boarder" will max Dex first and then take a nice feat like Defensive Duelist when his proficiency bonus is higher and he's hit the ability score cap. I can't imagine an optimizing "Dexy sword n boarder" ever taking Defensive Duelist before his Dex is capped. There is no trade and there is a "right answer."

I agree, incidentally, that Dex is something of a special case, probably because Dex is an OP stat. ;)

[MustacheFart]

Here's what I want to know.

Say you have a 16 in your primary stat starting out. If you go for nothing but feats how much are you really down when the cap is only 20? I mean does a +2 to your modifier really make that much of a difference in this edition? What about an 18 vs a 20? Given how this adventure is laid out it just seems to me like the reward given by the right feat far surpasses that +1/+2 modifier boost in 90% of situations.

[MadBear]

Here's what I want to know.

Say you have a 16 in your primary stat starting out. If you go for nothing but feats how much are you really down when the cap is only 20? I mean does a +2 to your modifier really make that much of a difference in this edition? What about an 18 vs a 20? Given how this adventure is laid out it just seems to me like the reward given by the right feat far surpasses that +1/+2 modifier boost in 90% of situations.

I think it depends. For a caster for instance that +1/+2 modifier will be 5-10% increase in landing a spell on pretty much any enemy. Heck even for a dex martial character, that +1 will net you increased damage, to-hit, AC, Initiative, skills, and save. It's not necessarily better then a feat, but you're almost never worse off by choosing to increase it over grabbing a feat first.

[Finieous]

Here's what I want to know.

Say you have a 16 in your primary stat starting out. If you go for nothing but feats how much are you really down when the cap is only 20? I mean does a +2 to your modifier really make that much of a difference in this edition? What about an 18 vs a 20? Given how this adventure is laid out it just seems to me like the reward given by the right feat far surpasses that +1/+2 modifier boost in 90% of situations.

I think you can just look at what the ability increase gives your class and build, and ask whether you would take it if it were a feat. You're a Strength fighter, would you take a +1 attack/+1 damage feat that applies to all of your grapples, attacks, Extra Attacks, bonus action attacks and reaction attacks?

I think it's usually going to be "yes" for a primary stat, but it might not be for some builds. I think the choices are very interesting for secondary stats, though.

[Oscredwin]

Here's what I want to know.

Say you have a 16 in your primary stat starting out. If you go for nothing but feats how much are you really down when the cap is only 20? I mean does a +2 to your modifier really make that much of a difference in this edition? What about an 18 vs a 20? Given how this adventure is laid out it just seems to me like the reward given by the right feat far surpasses that +1/+2 modifier boost in 90% of situations.

For a +2 to hit, look at what people are saying about Archery Combat Style. The largest benefit of stat boosts (given bounded accuracy) is the to hit bonus and the AC bonus. Nothing else seems worth it, but those two are huge.

[Kurald Galain]

Here's what I want to know.

Say you have a 16 in your primary stat starting out. If you go for nothing but feats how much are you really down when the cap is only 20? I mean does a +2 to your modifier really make that much of a difference in this edition? What about an 18 vs a 20? Given how this adventure is laid out it just seems to me like the reward given by the right feat far surpasses that +1/+2 modifier boost in 90% of situations.

In the average gaming session, you would never notice a two-point increase in any one stat. Unless your session consists almost entirely of combat, you will simply not make enough rolls on it to distinguish a 5% difference from just plain ol' luck (this is simple math: even if you make 20-25 rolls on one stat, the boost will only have you succeed in one additional roll per session).

Note that dexterity is traditionally the "god stat" in almost every game that has a dex stat, seeing as it can improves attack and defense and initiative and some solid skills; this is not the case for any of the other stats. So dex is really not the best example if you're trying to "prove" that people should take stats-over-feats.

In essence, this means that you should never bother raising a non-primary stat, and that pretty much all characters have two or three feats that are better than a +5% to their primary.

[Easy_Lee]

For a +2 to hit, look at what people are saying about Archery Combat Style. The largest benefit of stat boosts (given bounded accuracy) is the to hit bonus and the AC bonus. Nothing else seems worth it, but those two are huge.

Agreed, +2 hit is major. Seems to me the importance of stats depends on the stat and character. STR-fighters have probably the least need out of everyone to max their main stat, since strength only controls damage, hit, and a few skills/uncommon ST's. A rogue, on the other hand, has extreme incentive to max dex immediately since it controls everything about the class. Both of these classes get bonus feats and stat increases, though, so they have the easiest time of it.

Not sure how it works for MAD characters, but they'll probably end up consuming almost all of their boosts on stats anyway, unless the DM let's them start with two 18s or something. I can see a monk taking mage slayer early over stats, for instance, but not too much else.

Update: I think it's also going to depend a lot on the math of targets a character will be facing at each level. Depending on average ACs and saves, we can probably come up with minimum scores for hit and save DC by level. May need to wait for the DMG to finalize this.

[Finieous]

In the average gaming session, you would never notice a two-point increase in any one stat.


This is true, to some extent. I feel like I'm usually better off optimizing my character's ability to do "cool stuff" in the campaign, as opposed to very narrow optimization for one particular dpr mode.



Unless your session consists almost entirely of combat, you will simply not make enough rolls on it to distinguish a 5% difference from just plain ol' luck (this is simple math: even if you make 20-25 rolls on one stat, the boost will only have you succeed in one additional roll per session).

Note that dexterity is traditionally the "god stat" in almost every game that has a dex stat, seeing as it can improves attack and defense and initiative and some solid skills; this is not the case for any of the other stats. So dex is really not the best example if you're trying to "prove" that people should take stats-over-feats.

In essence, this means that you should never bother raising a non-primary stat, and that pretty much all characters have two or three feats that are better than a +5% to their primary.

...but I think the rest of this is nonsense. ;) A 20th level fighter with no bonus action or reaction attacks and assuming no skill checks, grapples, shoves or saving throws is making EIGHT attack/damage rolls per round. He's going to notice if his Strength is still 16...

ETA: The last bit isn't nonsense - didn't mean to quote that part. :)

[Kurald Galain]

A 20th level fighter with no bonus action or reaction attacks

But we're not talking about level-20 games.

First, most campaigns never get even remotely near level 20, so it would be more suitable to look at levels 1-10. And second, a level-20 character will most likely have run out of good feats by now, and will have been able to spend one or two feats to max out his primary.

Realistically, we're looking at level 4 or 8, not at level 20. By that point, every character should still easily have a feat available that's better than an ability boost.

[silveralen]

In essence, this means that you should never bother raising a non-primary stat, and that pretty much all characters have two or three feats that are better than a +5% to their primary.

I agree with the first portion, honestly I don't think stat bonuses give a lot compared to feats for your non primary stat.

However, the latter bit simply isn't true. Anyone whose main is dex (which is rogue and probably half the fighters/rangers at least) unquestionably gets more. There aren't a ton of feats casters really want, at least not badly. Elemental adapt can wait, spell sniper isn't the most amazing, while warcaster is at best a marginally superior choice over resilient (con). Most of the other feats you'd consider give you half a bonus to your main stat, which means that if you build correctly you aren't delaying your primary attribute at all, but one of your secondary attributes.

Seriously, if you can name a feat better for warlock than charisma feel free, because I've yet to find anything.

[Finieous]

But we're not talking about level-20 games.

First, most campaigns never get even remotely near level 20, so it would be more suitable to look at levels 1-10. And second, a level-20 character will most likely have run out of good feats by now, and will have been able to spend one or two feats to max out his primary.

Realistically, we're looking at level 4 or 8, not at level 20. By that point, every character should still easily have a feat available that's better than an ability boost.

I've only played two characters so far, so I'm not sure. For one, my war cleric, I want Resilient (Con) at 4th level. After that, I don't think any feat gives me as much as the bonus action attacks, spell DCs, etc., I get from Wisdom bumps. The other is a Dex fighter, so there isn't really a contest.

Martials, in general, have a tough decision. You don't face the choice until 4th level and that extra attack comes online at 5th. Maybe it depends on what your starting Str is.

[archaeo]

Seriously, if you can name a feat better for warlock than charisma feel free, because I've yet to find anything.

First, assume that you've taken a race with a +2 to Charisma and, via point buy or the default array, have a 15 in Cha, giving you a total of 17 at level 1.

This means that taking +1 Cha from Actor at level 4 is probably the optimal choice, as the second +1 from the ability score bump is "wasted". Pair this with Beguiling Influence and you have one of the best "face" characters in the game.

[Finieous]

First, assume that you've taken a race with a +2 to Charisma and, via point buy or the default array, have a 15 in Cha, giving you a total of 17 at level 1.

This means that taking +1 Cha from Actor at level 4 is probably the optimal choice, as the second +1 from the ability score bump is "wasted". Pair this with Beguiling Influence and you have one of the best "face" characters in the game.

I'd just do the +1/+1 to increase my Cha and either my Con or Wis, depending which is a 13. Hit points and Con saves or Wis saves and Perception are both more valuable IMO than Actor. I think Actor is best in a game for which optimization discussions become moot. ;)

[Morty]

Personally speaking, if given the choice between a minor bonus to an attribute of questionable relevance, and a chance to do something you can't without a given feat, it's not much of a contest.

[archaeo]

I'd just do the +1/+1 to increase my Cha and either my Con or Wis, depending which is a 13. Hit points and Con saves or Wis saves and Perception are both more valuable IMO than Actor. I think Actor is best in a game for which optimization discussions become moot. ;)

Yeah, for some reason I thought ability score increases were +2 to a single stat and forgot you could do +1 in two stats. Oops!

I still think taking Actor would be a better use of your time than a 5% increase in Con, but I just generally agree with Morty on this. Regardless, the ability score increase/feat dichotomy strikes me as an interesting tradeoff that requires players to make meaningful decisions, and that's cool with me.

[silveralen]

First, assume that you've taken a race with a +2 to Charisma and, via point buy or the default array, have a 15 in Cha, giving you a total of 17 at level 1.

This means that taking +1 Cha from Actor at level 4 is probably the optimal choice, as the second +1 from the ability score bump is "wasted". Pair this with Beguiling Influence and you have one of the best "face" characters in the game.

Well yes, I actually have a half elf warlock who did exactly this, but at this point you aren't picking a feat over an increase to your primary ability, you are getting both. You are getting a feat for a +1 to a secondary ability.

[Socko525]

I was just actually going to post something about this myself, which if it gets lost in here I may actually do.

I'm playing a half-elf paladin in an upcoming game and having the same dilemma of attribute boost/feat. My DM wanted us all roll stats and I did, and the dice gods must have smiled upon my that night as I scored: 18, 16, 15, 13, 12, 9. I decided I wanted to sword and board as I've never done it in a game previously and like it thematically so stats look like this:

Str-18
Dex-12
Con-16 (15+1 from half-elf)
Int-9
Wis-14 (13+1 from half-elf)
Cha-18 (16+2 from half-elf)

I realize that this puts me in a lot better place than a point buy/standard array character as I basically miss out on the raising from 16 to 18 for my stats. However, I'd be very curious as to your opinions. In my position what would you take as a sword and board paladin with those stats/when if ever would you boost your abilities?

I figure I'd want to get Str to 20 at some point, but there's a lot of great feats I was looking at too like mounted combat, resilient (Con), sentinel, lucky, and possibly mage slayer or alert.

I'd love your feedback!

[Easy_Lee]

I figure I'd want to get Str to 20 at some point, but there's a lot of great feats I was looking at too like mounted combat, resilient (Con), sentinel, lucky, and possibly mage slayer or alert.

All good options. I'd say don't try to do everything. Pick what you want to be good at (mounted combat, not failing saves) and take it early. You won't need stat boosts as much at early levels since your attacks / spells will usually land, especially with your +4's.

I'd personally aim for 20 STR and CHA BY 16, and pick the feats you really want at 4 and 8.

[KnotKnormal]

Two Weapon Master, for contrast, is worse than +2 DEX.

I'll actually argue that. TWF can actually have some really nice advantages later, especially if you multi-class into a caster class. That allows you to cast a spell and still use your bonus action for melee. also early levels, TWF is a great way to boost damage. But i'm getting off topic.

I think the stat boost are well balanced with the feats as a whole, but i dislike how the feats seem like an after thought in the making of 5e, their variant rules to start with, and they are desperately buffed to try to compete with the stat bumps. This is just my take on it, and I'm ready for the hate train to hit me, but I miss spending days, carefully sifting through the mountain of feats finding the ones that fit my fluff.

[Easy_Lee]

I'll actually argue that. TWF can actually have some really nice advantages later, especially if you multi-class into a caster class. That allows you to cast a spell and still use your bonus action for melee. also early levels, TWF is a great way to boost damage. But i'm getting off topic.

You can still dual wield regardless, the feat just lets you go from using 1d6 to 1d8, an extra damage of one per attack. The fighting style is the only major damage boost for TWF as it lets you add attribute to offhand, which still caps at +5 per round.

That's why many are unimpressed with the TWF feats. Archery, Crossbow expert and Sharpshooter push bow DPR ahead of TWF, to where the only advantage of TWF is AOO's, which are situational, and DD if you want it, which a RAW hand crossbow expert can still use by holding a dagger in offhand.

WoTC kind of messed up with TWF this time.

[Finieous]

You can still dual wield regardless, the feat just lets you go from using 1d6 to 1d8, an extra damage of one per attack. The fighting style is the only major damage boost for TWF as it lets you add attribute to offhand, which still caps at +5 per round.

That's why many are unimpressed with the TWF feats. Archery, Crossbow expert and Sharpshooter push bow DPR ahead of TWF, to where the only advantage of TWF is AOO's, which are situational, and DD if you want it, which a RAW hand crossbow expert can still use by holding a dagger in offhand.

WoTC kind of messed up with TWF this time.

How much would heavy one-handed weapons change things? Probably too much...

[Easy_Lee]

How much would heavy one-handed weapons change things? Probably too much...

You mean like dual wielding lances (which aren't heavy, surprisingly) for double 1d12? That's about the only way TWF pulls ahead. But that requires strength, and a mount, and most DMs won't allow it anyway.

[Finieous]

You mean like dual wielding lances (which aren't heavy, surprisingly) for double 1d12? That's about the only way TWF pulls ahead. But that requires strength, and a mount, and most DMs won't allow it anyway.

No, I meant a sword -- call it a bastard sword -- that does 2d4 (1d10 versatile) with the heavy property, so it could be used with GWM. I was wondering how that would impact the dpr of a Strength-based TWFer.

It's really just a roundabout way of saying that TWFers need a power attack.

[DireSickFish]

The feat is only really good if you wanted to Str TWF for some reason or your dex is already 20. Variant human it's good on to as you can start with it but Dex is strictly better.

I think it's a reasonable trade off. For me I like to get a stat to maximum before picking up feats, but a lot of people in my game are taking feats at lvl4. Most of them are new, and arn't the best optimizers. It is nice to see that the feats are tantalizing and really leads to a variety of different builds. It does make variant human look a little to strong in comparison to other races.

I want to make a character that has the leadership and healer feats to provide super party support. Could even be a martial character if I wanted.

[Easy_Lee]

No, I meant a sword -- call it a bastard sword -- that does 2d4 (1d10 versatile) with the heavy property, so it could be used with GWM. I was wondering how that would impact the dpr of a Strength-based TWFer.

It's really just a roundabout way of saying that TWFers need a power attack.

I think the real issue is that non-range finesse options are limited. I made a post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?377520-Halfling-Lance) over in the homebrew to add a lance for little guys; perhaps something similar could be done.

That said, there are no stand-out 1h weapons with high damage besides lance. Longsword and rapier are both the strongest unmounted 1h weapon. Creating something like a 2d4 will potentially leave the great weapons guys mad because they had to give up initiative, reflex saves, consistent bonus action attacks, and a shield to get their damage.

I'm not sure what should be done. If I were going to houserule it, I'd start by combining the dual wielder feat into the fighting style, so those guys don't end up taking a bunch of feats just to not keep up.

[Strill]

Here's what I want to know.

Say you have a 16 in your primary stat starting out. If you go for nothing but feats how much are you really down when the cap is only 20? I mean does a +2 to your modifier really make that much of a difference in this edition? What about an 18 vs a 20? Given how this adventure is laid out it just seems to me like the reward given by the right feat far surpasses that +1/+2 modifier boost in 90% of situations.

A +2 to your offensive stat improves your overall damage by about 20%.

[Spinward Bound]

I'll actually argue that. TWF can actually have some really nice advantages later, especially if you multi-class into a caster class. That allows you to cast a spell and still use your bonus action for melee.

Pretty sure you can't do that, when TWF you have use your action to attack with a melee weapon to trigger the bonus attack with the off-hand weapon.

I'd love to be wrong though, that would change how I'm running my bard.

[Fwiffo86]

A +2 to your offensive stat improves your overall damage by about 20%.

I don't disagree with this statement, but I find the math difficult to defend. I think it hovers around 20%ish depending on the source of damage.

Weapons + typical attribute damage bonus
Greatsword: 2d6+3 = 10 damage per hit. +2 damage would be 20%ish

Longsword: 1d8+3 = 7.5 damage per hit. +2 damage would be 26%ish

Dart: 1d4+3 = 5.5 damage per hit. +2 damage would be 36%ish

Spells
Burning Hands 3d8+3 = 13.5 damage. +2 damage would be 12%ish
(used as an example for demonstration purposes)

Yep... hovering around 20% when calculating raw damage without chance to hit, attacks, or other miscellaneous modifiers.

[KnotKnormal]

Pretty sure you can't do that, when TWF you have use your action to attack with a melee weapon to trigger the bonus attack with the off-hand weapon.

I'd love to be wrong though, that would change how I'm running my bard.

I'll have to look it up again too, this was my initial understanding of it though... you were aloud the bonus attack as long as you had a weapon in each hand. which would imply that you can cast a spell (with no, or simple semantic components. such as Blur or Fireball) and then attack with the other weapon. I'll definitely read through again and find out for sure for everyone.

I was mistaken, you do have to take an initial attack action with the main hand, before getting the bonus attack with the off hand... i apologize.

[rlc]

There are already charop guides?

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Not in the same density as 3e (and they read more like 4e/PF guides), but here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?377491-Guides-Tables-and-other-useful-tools-for-5E-D-amp-D) is a relatively updated list. Notice how often you see prescribed stat boosts in those guides.

[Strill]

I don't disagree with this statement, but I find the math difficult to defend. I think it hovers around 20%ish depending on the source of damage.

Weapons + typical attribute damage bonus
Greatsword: 2d6+3 = 10 damage per hit. +2 damage would be 20%ish

Longsword: 1d8+3 = 7.5 damage per hit. +2 damage would be 26%ish

Dart: 1d4+3 = 5.5 damage per hit. +2 damage would be 36%ish

Spells
Burning Hands 3d8+3 = 13.5 damage. +2 damage would be 12%ish
(used as an example for demonstration purposes)

Yep... hovering around 20% when calculating raw damage without chance to hit, attacks, or other miscellaneous modifiers.
+2 STR is not +2 damage. It's +1 HIT +1 Damage.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

The benefits of +2 STR on DPR without advantage are as follows:

A = expected # of attacks per round, including via bonus action and reaction
B = expected damage per hit without +2 str
C = chance to hit without +2 str (I'm assuming that you miss on a 2 and hit on a 19)

DPR without = A*B*C
DPR with = A*(B+1)*(C+0.05)
Increase = A*(0.05*B+C+0.05)
Percentage increase = Increase/A*B*C = [0.05(B+1)+C]/[B*C]
dPI/dA=0
dPI/dB=-[0.05(B(1-C)+1)+C]/[(BC)^2]<0
dPI/dC=[B(C-0.05)-C-0.05]/[(BC)^2]

If you'd normally attack once, hit on an 11, and deal on average 10 damage per hit, then the base DPR is 5, the increase in DPR is 1.05, and the percent increase is 21%, like Strill said.

If you'd normally attack twice, hit on a 9, and deal on average 20 damage per hit, then the base DPR is 24, the increase in DPR is 3.3, and the percent increase is only 13.75%. What happened?

As A increases, the percentage increase in damage will not change - that is to say, +STR benefits proportionally to the number of attacks, which is nice.

As B increases, the percentage increase in damage will decrease. This is the main reason why the percentage went down.

As C increases, the percentage increase in damage will increase for reasonable to-hit and base damage.

Over time, base damage goes up a considerable amount, and accuracy may increase depending on what type of enemies you face. This suggests that an increase in STR will increase DPR by a smaller percentage at the higher levels. This also means ability increases are less important for classes with higher base damage attacks, all else equal. Compare the paladin, who has various ways of adding dice to his damage, to fighter, who generally speaking increases damage by attacking a lot.

I might edit in some calculations for adding in marginal extra attacks, which is essentially the benefit of taking polearm master.

[Strill]

As C increases, the percentage increase in damage will increase for reasonable to-hit and base damage.

You mean decrease. C increasing causes the percentage change to decrease. If you have at least a 50% chance to hit, however, it does decrease very slowly though.

Here's some graphs of the percentage value of +2 STR for any given chance to hit. The x-axis is chance to hit. The y-axis is percentage increase in damage from a +2 STR bonus.

Value of +2 STR with 5 damage (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+y+%3D+%5B0.05%285%2B1%29%2Bx%5D%2F%5B5*x%5 D%2C++from+0+to+1)

Value of +2 STR with 7 damage (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+y+%3D+%5B0.05%287%2B1%29%2Bx%5D%2F%5B7*x%5 D%2C++from+0+to+1)

Value of +2 STR with 10 damage (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+y+%3D+%5B0.05%2810%2B1%29%2Bx%5D%2F%5B10*x %5D%2C++from+0+to+1)

Value of +2 STR with 15 damage (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+y+%3D+%5B0.05%2815%2B1%29%2Bx%5D%2F%5B15*x %5D%2C++from+0+to+1)


TL;DR: High damage-per-hit (Paladin, Blade Warlock) classes benefit proportionally less from +STR than other classes. You can expect about +15% overall damage from +2 STR at the ABSOLUTE LEAST. In general, +2 STR = +20% overall damage.

If you have around 15 damage per hit (Level 11+ Paladins and Warlocks), +2 STR is probably worth around +15% overall damage.
If you have around 10 damage per hit, +2 STR is probably worth around +15% to +25% overall damage.
If you have around 5 damage per hit, +2 STR is probably worth around +25% to +30% overall damage.

[Easy_Lee]

TL;DR: High damage-per-hit (Paladin, Blade Warlock) classes benefit less from +STR than other classes. You can expect +15% overall damage from +2 STR at the ABSOLUTE LEAST. In general, +2 STR = +20% overall damage.

If you have around 15 damage per hit (Level 11+ Paladins and Warlocks), +2 STR is probably worth around +15% overall damage.
If you have around 10 damage per hit, +2 STR is probably worth around +15% to +25% overall damage.
If you have around 5 damage per hit, +2 STR is probably worth around +25% to +30% overall damage.

So two-handed fighters and lance-wielders benefit less from bonus strength than dual wielders do from bonus strength/dexterity? That's interesting. I wonder how this interacts with Archery.

[Xetheral]

TL;DR: High damage-per-hit (Paladin, Blade Warlock) classes benefit less from +STR than other classes. You can expect +15% overall damage from +2 STR at the ABSOLUTE LEAST.

While you're absolutely right that higher base damage builds benefit less than from +STR than other builds, I believe your calculated hard floor of a 15% increase is incorrect. As you noted, as base damage goes up, the bonus to damage from a +1 to hit and damage approaches the bonus to damage from a +1 to hit by itself. The lowest necessary roll on a d20 to hit the target's AC where a +1 bonus is a greater than 15% improvement is 15. (35% chance over 30% chance is an improvement of 16.6%.)

So, for targets hittable on a roll of less than 15, there exists a level of base damage where a +1 to hit and damage represents less than a 15% overall increase in damage. (Admittedly, for a base required roll of 14, this would require an implausible base damage of 160, but this rapidly decreases: for a base required roll of 9 the increase drops below 15% at a base damage of only 17.). This contradicts your conclusions, and suggests that either you or I have made an error somewhere.

[rlc]

So two-handed fighters and lance-wielders benefit less from bonus strength than dual wielders do from bonus strength/dexterity? That's interesting. I wonder how this interacts with Archery.

to be fair, whether +1 is +100% or +1%, you still have more of something than somebody else does.

[Rfkannen]

Whats the concencess on casters? Most of these appear to be about melee classes. For example, if a light cleric has 18 wisdom and no feats, which would be more valuable.

[Easy_Lee]

Whats the concencess on casters? Most of these appear to be about melee classes. For example, if a light cleric has 18 wisdom and no feats, which would be more valuable.

Casters rely on their casting stat not just for damage, but also for the DCs of their spells and often how many spells they can prepare. I think it's a bigger deal for casters to maximize their casting stat ASAP.

[MaxWilson]

Whats the concencess on casters? Most of these appear to be about melee classes. For example, if a light cleric has 18 wisdom and no feats, which would be more valuable.

It depends very much on what kind of caster you expect to be. Primary stat ONLY affects offensive output, so if you're going to be casting Longstrider/Free Movement on your friends before Polymorphing into a Tyrannosaurus Rex and joining melee combat, you could actually get away with a 10 in your primary casting stat.

I'm gravitating towards Lucky/Alert[1] and sometimes Mobile on casters as being more important than boosting an 18 to a 20. If you're targetting a weak save the difference between DC 14 and DC 15 shouldn't be more important than staying alive; and the extra +1 to-hit on cantrips doesn't really matter much unless you're a warlock.

[1] Alert can be a real lifesaver on a spellcaster. E.g. round 1 surprised by Intellect Devourers at 15' range, but the Conjuror with Alert is not surprised and gets initiative and summons 8 Mud Mephits who can both soak damage and use their breath weapons to Restrain the IDs. That's the difference between life and death.

[Easy_Lee]

It depends very much on what kind of caster you expect to be. Primary stat ONLY affects offensive output, so if you're going to be casting Longstrider/Free Movement on your friends before Polymorphing into a Tyrannosaurus Rex and joining melee combat, you could actually get away with a 10 in your primary casting stat.

Wizards can prepare more spells based on their intellect. Taking +2 INT means they can prepare one more spell. So that's something you give up.

[MaxWilson]

Wizards can prepare more spells based on their intellect. Taking +2 INT means they can prepare one more spell. So that's something you give up.

True, and I should have mentioned that. I don't think it changes the basic decision calculus: I would still rather have Alert/Lucky than +2 Int.

[cobaltstarfire]

I'm actually having a pretty hard time myself deciding which to take, I made a Fighter/ Tempest Cleric recently. (was going to go Barb/Cleric, but 4 important stats is a little bit insane with point buy).

Although I haven't sat down and considered the types of spells I think this character would use most, that'll probably make it much easier to decide if I want to bump my casting stat, or take a feat. But it's still a hard choice.


I think whichever is "best" really depends on what the characters concept/goal is, and also stat generation. Seems like stat boosts would be less important for dice rolled characters unless they rolled really poorly. But for point buy, where you can't go higher than 15 before racials I think stat boosts can take priority over feats.

[Strill]

So two-handed fighters and lance-wielders benefit less from bonus strength than dual wielders do from bonus strength/dexterity? That's interesting. I wonder how this interacts with Archery.Not quite. First, we didn't compare dual-wielding because we assumed that number of attacks remained constant.

Second, For 2-hand wielders, +2 STR is a smaller proportional increase to their overall damage, but it's still a *slightly* greater amount of absolute damage than a 1-handed fighter would get.


for a base required roll of 9 the increase drops below 15% at a base damage of only 17.). This contradicts your conclusions, and suggests that either you or I have made an error somewhere.

I calculate a 17% increase in that case.

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%5B0.05%2817%2B1%29%2B.45%5D%2F%5B17*.45%5D

[Xetheral]

Hitting on a 9 or higher is a 55% chance, not a 45% chance.

Edit: And... I apparently can't count. This is wrong.

[Strill]

Hitting on a 9 or higher is a 55% chance, not a 45% chance.

So then 15.5%

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%5B0.05%2817%2B1%29%2B.55%5D%2F%5B17*.55%5D

[Xetheral]

My apologies. I made a mistake: 9 or higher is a 60% chance, which works out to a 14.7% increase.

The point is, it only gets lower from there: with higher base damage or a better AC, the percentage continues to drop. Thus, 15% isn't the absolute floor you've made it out to be.

The actual floor for target numbers within range of the d20 limits to a 5.55% improvement (.95/.90-1). (In practice, for reasonable <50 base damage values, the improvement isn't likely to drop below about 7.5%.)

[Sartharina]

You can still dual wield regardless, the feat just lets you go from using 1d6 to 1d8, an extra damage of one per attack. The fighting style is the only major damage boost for TWF as it lets you add attribute to offhand, which still caps at +5 per round.Except you're critting twice as often as a 1-weapon user would (until high levels), and +1 DEX does jack diddly for your crit damage. And +5 is significant. The +1 Shield bonus is also nice because it stacks with Medium Armor, which gives better AC than light armor until you max out Dex.

[BW022]

I'm going to assume point buy or array, and obviously that feats are available. I'll also take a favorable case - I admit some classes/builds really do benefit much more from stat increases.


Play what you want. If you think it is better or you just want to play that... by all means play it. However, it is somewhat silly to just take a favorable case and then state that stats are overrated. Obviously, you have to look at all cases and take an average, or just accept the fact that it may or may not be overrated based on your specific character. I could easily just pick a case where a character wants to multi-class but needs to raise a stat from 11 to 13 in order to do so. In that case, stat increases are hardly overrated.




Also, consider a Paladin 4 GWF style with 16 starting strength fighting with a glaive, choosing Polearm Master or +2 STR.
...


I'm really leery of such cases. You've already assumed a lot here. You've now assumed that the character has a high constitution, some magical way of getting a higher AC, or someone else is tanking. A polearm paladin is going to be taking a lot of damage at 4th-level (and on his way to 4th-level). Heavy armour is at best an AC 18. You'll also assumed he isn't in ranged combat, isn't your healer (needing actions to do that), isn't smiting, didn't find a magical weapon (so someone else has the +1 longsword because he wants his glaive), etc., etc.

So far in 5E, I've found a lot of combats rather fluid. One trick tactics tends not to come into play that often. You could be fighting swarms of kobolds with slings one combat, a large ogre the next, fighting on a narrow walkway the next, facing spells the next combat, fighting on hours the next, etc., etc. I have found a lot of times you can't utilize certain tricks as often as you think.

If it is fun having a concept build... sure... play it. But, sometimes you have to look at the rest of your party and realize that you may have to carry a shield, use the magical mace, spend your time healing, etc. and that you won't see so much usefulness out of your build as you think. As such, math arguments are extremely iffy.

[JoeJ]

Two Weapon Master, for contrast, is worse than +2 DEX.

Assuming you're playing a DEX-based fighter, the feat gives the same boost to AC and to damage (going from d6 weapons to d8 weapons) as increasing DEX. Raising the stat also increases your attack bonus by +1 and gives +1 on DEX checks. The feat lets you draw two weapons in place of one (meh, although there are a few circumstances where you'll get an extra attack), and lets you trade the extra damage for reach by pairing rapier with whip. The numbers seem to favor the stat boost, but using rapier + whip gives the feat greater coolness, so I'd rate the two options as being about equal. If your concept is acrobatic, go for the stat boost. If you want to play Zorro, take the feat.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

However, it is somewhat silly to just take a favorable case and then state that stats are overrated.Good thing I didn't do that.
Obviously, you have to look at all cases and take an average, or just accept the fact that it may or may not be overrated based on your specific character.Of course it depends on the character. That's why I shouldn't see every character guide recommending maxing your stats in almost all cases. Hence why it's overrated, not bad.
I could easily just pick a case where a character wants to multi-class but needs to raise a stat from 11 to 13 in order to do so. In that case, stat increases are hardly overrated.Those are equally specific and common cases, in your mind?
I'm really leery of such cases. You've already assumed a lot here.Of course I have. I'm using a specific example. Care to come up with another one that is actually relevant? We could switch to fighter, and the numbers would be quite similar.
You've now assumed that the character has a high constitution, some magical way of getting a higher AC, or someone else is tanking.Or, perhaps, I assume some people will choose to play a front liner that wields a two-handed weapon. He'll have two less AC than a sword'n'boarder, but he'll also kill the enemy more quickly.
A polearm paladin is going to be taking a lot of damage at 4th-level (and on his way to 4th-level). Heavy armour is at best an AC 18.I compared two paladins with the same defenses. Unless you're saying that paladins should always be sword-n-boarding, in which case I should be comparing a longsword-n-board with a quarterstaff-n-board. Honestly whether two-handing is worthwhile (and offense-vs.-defense in general) is a completely different discussion, but you could at least pretend to acknowledge the idea that some people will want to play a high-offense melee character. He still has d10 HP and self-healing.
You'll also assumed he isn't in ranged combat,Because, for that to be relevant at all, you'd need to be in thrown weapon range but no further, and not be able to reach the target in melee. And even then, in this corner case, the STRaladin just has an extra +1 to attack and damage.
isn't your healer (needing actions to do that),Having to use your standard action to do something else is actually a favorable case for the polearm wielder, since he can still bonus action attack.
isn't smiting,If both paladins smite, the +STR character uses it slightly better because of his accuracy bump, but not enough to change things significantly.
didn't find a magical weapon (so someone else has the +1 longsword because he wants his glaive), etc., etc.Obviously the main drawback with taking a feat that specializes in a type of weapon is having a situation where you want to use a different type of weapon. But since the rules for all those magic weapons aren't out until December, and the DM knows if the character is a friggin' Polearm Master, I'm going to call this a DM issue, at least for a month and a half.
So far in 5E, I've found a lot of combats rather fluid. One trick tactics tends not to come into play that often. You could be fighting swarms of kobolds with slings one combat, a large ogre the next, fighting on a narrow walkway the next, facing spells the next combat, fighting on hours the next, etc., etc. I have found a lot of times you can't utilize certain tricks as often as you think.Polearm master is not a one-trick tactic. It expands your options. That's half the damn point of taking feats over ability increases, as stated in the OP. How does +ability help you deal with the fluidity of these encounters better? Honestly I'd rather have polearm master fighting any of those encounters, but especially the swarm of mooks that I could more easily opportunity attack.
If it is fun having a concept build... sure... play it. But, sometimes you have to look at the rest of your party and realize that you may have to carry a shield, use the magical mace, spend your time healing, etc. and that you won't see so much usefulness out of your build as you think. As such, math arguments are extremely iffy.The only relevant concern you brought up is that maybe a magical weapon that isn't your type shows up. You may have noticed the more relevant concerns posted before you. Caster feats aren't as good. Dex-based characters are pumping an incredible stat that governs almost everything they do. "Your example is too specific," however, only works as a complaint if you come up with relevant counter-examples, or ways to change my example that actually change the end analysis.

[Kurald Galain]

A corollary to my original idea is that Variant Human might be gold (as opposed to sky blue in almost every guide) for many classes/builds.In 3e you pumped a stat because you could make it apply to everything twice, and you could replace your other stats easily enough. I'm not aware of much 3e or 4e content where this kind of dilemma has existed, since you couldn't trade out ability increases in those editions IIRC.
The common optimized stat array in 4E is 18/14/11/10/10/8 pre-racial, with the stat increases every fourth level going to the 18 and 14; to optimize, you basically dump four stats in favor of the other two.


Also notice that for a character whose main stat is anything but dex the trade off skews significantly into the favor of feats.
That bears repeating. Of course, most character classes fall in that category.

[MaxWilson]

Honestly I'd rather have polearm master fighting any of those encounters, but especially the swarm of mooks that I could more easily opportunity attack.

One downside that came up recently in a mock-combat is: "do polearms (halberds) work normally in 5' wide tunnels?" For the mock-combat I just handwaved it away but I wonder if it might not be a genuine problem for polearm builds, or even two-handed slashing weapons in general.

Anyone with actual experience wielding halberds in cramped quarters is welcome to share their wisdom. :)

[Cibulan]

One downside that came up recently in a mock-combat is: "do polearms (halberds) work normally in 5' wide tunnels?" For the mock-combat I just handwaved it away but I wonder if it might not be a genuine problem for polearm builds, or even two-handed slashing weapons in general.

Anyone with actual experience wielding halberds in cramped quarters is welcome to share their wisdom. :)I have a Cold Steel pole axe, there's no way it could be used effectively in a 5' foot hall.

Correction I guess, no way it could be used as intended in a 5' hall. You'd have to choke up on the handle.

[pwykersotz]

That bears repeating. Of course, most character classes fall in that category.

I dunno. I'm considering bumping Charisma for my Paladin.

I'm using the standard array and ending up with Str 16, Dex 12, Con 13, Int 10, Wis 8, and Cha 16. Increasing the DC of my smite attacks, channel divinity, giving an extra +1 bonus to all saves, and boosting my class skills seems to be a pretty good choice. I don't see how that does less work for me than Dex does on a Rogue or Dex Fighter.

Dex can POTENTIALLY give you Init, dex skills, AC, to hit, and damage, if you build solely for dex.
Cha on a paladin can give you spell dc, CD dc, +saves, cha skills.

Dex seems a little more favorable, but not so much more as to have the paladin take a feat instead of an increase because it's not dex.

[Easy_Lee]

I have a Cold Steel pole axe, there's no way it could be used effectively in a 5' foot hall.

Correction I guess, no way it could be used as intended in a 5' hall. You'd have to choke up on the handle.

If It has a spike on the head, it could be quite effective in a hallway. Consider leveling it like a spear towards your opponent and just stabbing if they get close. It would be very hard to counter such a trick, particularly if the wielder was a practiced fighter. Of course, at that point it's not really slashing damage.

[Cibulan]

If It has a spike on the head, it could be quite effective in a hallway. Consider leveling it like a spear towards your opponent and just stabbing if they get close. It would be very hard to counter such a trick, particularly if the wielder was a practiced fighter. Of course, at that point it's not really slashing damage. No spike, axe head and hammer head.

[Maxilian]

I normally prefer feats over stat boosts, but that's mainly because i find feats fun and you can create really unique characters with them :smallbiggrin: