Is there ever any reason to have two good mental stats?

[strangebloke]

I have really wanted to play a certain character that's been dwelling in my subconcious for a few years now.

But here's the thing. She's meant to be a great tactician (INT/WIS) and a good leader of men (CHA). She's also supposed to be very competent in melee combat (STR/DEX).

For fluff reasons I wanted to play a paladin, but as far as I can tell, there is no reason to ever make a character like this.

The best Idea I had was to play a very SAD build, like a Hexblade, and to boost INT or WIS just because I could. Alternately, play a fighter and start with a low spread and then compensate with the extra ASIs. Both these options make the internal optimizer in me cry out in pain and loathing.

Is there ever any reason to have two good mental stats?

[Consensus]

No optimization reason to, other than probably unoptimal multi classes in the first place. Although, two scenarios I can think of are Wizard X/Cleric 1, or Bard X/Cleric 1. My group solves this problem with a very generous stat rolling method :smalltongue:

[BobZan]

Make a Ranger/Paladin. That way you HAVE to have 13 in STR/DEX/WIS/CHA.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Is there ever any reason to have two good mental stats?

Although I don't quite see how this question follows from the rest of your post, of course there are reasons to have two good mental stats. The obvious one is for multiclasses, and 'mental skillmonkey' is a valid party role in political/mystery games.

As it goes, I'm currently playing a wizard with a spread of 8/8/8/16/16/17 (a half-elf and with the Skilled feat, to boot) and having a lot of fun. She's super squishy, obviously, but incredibly effective outside of combat.

[JellyPooga]

To address your Paladin (or whatever it ends up being) idea...well, yeah, everyone wants a character with all 18's. Without exceptional dice rolling, though, it's not likely to happen and I suspect having that "perfect" character won't actually be all that fun for all that long; with no weaknesses and everything being so homogenized, you lose the point of actually having separate stats. As you point out yourself, trying to optimise an all-rounder is just an exercise in frustration; you end up being OK at a lot of things, but not actually great at anything.

The actual question you ask; yes, there is plenty of point in having two good mental stats. By way of demonstration;

- An Enchanter Wizard has plenty of reason to have great Intelligence and Charisma, due to the lack of direct control that enchantments offer; the Charmed condition isn't what it used to be!

- A Moon Druid has little use for Strength or Dexterity. Why waste points on them when you're rarely actually going to use them? Pump those points into your mental stats for better overall Saves and checks.

- Most non-Cleric/Druid spellcaters. Simply put, Wisdom is an important Save (and stat in general, IMO). Everyone wants good Wisdom. If you also need good Intelligence (Wizard, EK, AT) or Charisma (practically everyone else these days) for your class abilities/spellcasting then that's more than reason enough to have two good mental stats.

[Cespenar]

Play a Paladin and ascribe her tactical acumen to experience (read: levels) instead of Int/Wis?

[LeonBH]

Sure, it's to bolster your weak saves. :)

You can also replace some of the mental stats with feats, if you like. The good leader attribute can be the Inspiring Leader feat instead of pumping CHA up all the way. The tactician can be Martial Adept with Commander's Strike or Maneuvering Strike as your maneuvers, so that your tactics actually have a mechanical representation.

[Unoriginal]

Is there ever any reason to have two good mental stats?

Before I answer this, I have a question for you:

Is there is any reason to NOT have two good mental stats?


Now, to answer your question: if you want to "optimize" a character, going for an all-rounder is counter-intuitive. But logically speaking, having a character who is smart, perceptive and charismatic is the basic of the dashing rogue type.

Any class can fit the bill, though. Most obvious are Bard and Rogue, but Fighter, Paladin, Barbarian, etc, all work.



For fluff reasons I wanted to play a paladin, but as far as I can tell, there is no reason to ever make a character like this.

How does "because it's fun/cool/awesome" sound, as a reason?

[strangebloke]

Make a Ranger/Paladin. That way you HAVE to have 13 in STR/DEX/WIS/CHA.
yes, this is my point. You obviously can do it, but is there any reason from an optimization perspective?

No optimization reason to, other than probably unoptimal multi classes in the first place. Although, two scenarios I can think of are Wizard X/Cleric 1, or Bard X/Cleric 1. My group solves this problem with a very generous stat rolling method :smalltongue:
This is what I thought.

To address your Paladin (or whatever it ends up being) idea...well, yeah, everyone wants a character with all 18's. Without exceptional dice rolling, though, it's not likely to happen and I suspect having that "perfect" character won't actually be all that fun for all that long; with no weaknesses and everything being so homogenized, you lose the point of actually having separate stats. As you point out yourself, trying to optimise an all-rounder is just an exercise in frustration; you end up being OK at a lot of things, but not actually great at anything.

The actual question you ask; yes, there is plenty of point in having two good mental stats. By way of demonstration;

- An Enchanter Wizard has plenty of reason to have great Intelligence and Charisma, due to the lack of direct control that enchantments offer; the Charmed condition isn't what it used to be!

- A Moon Druid has little use for Strength or Dexterity. Why waste points on them when you're rarely actually going to use them? Pump those points into your mental stats for better overall Saves and checks.

- Most non-Cleric/Druid spellcaters. Simply put, Wisdom is an important Save (and stat in general, IMO). Everyone wants good Wisdom. If you also need good Intelligence (Wizard, EK, AT) or Charisma (practically everyone else these days) for your class abilities/spellcasting then that's more than reason enough to have two good mental stats.
I don't need my character to be perfect. I'm not asking, for instance, how to create a character that is an awesome spellcaster and has expertise and can get five attacks in a round. I just want a martial who's got a pretty solid head on her shoulders, and benefits from that.

-Enchanter is a good example.
-Moon Druid is one I hadn't thought of. The beastform HP means that you don't need to sweat CON so much.
-WIS in general doesn't really seem... worth it? I mean, if you only have two stats that you need to be good, you can obviously spare a few points... but if you're a paladin or a melee bard or whatever, you're trading power in either spellcasting or to-hit just to get a 10% improvement on your saving throw whenever that actually happens.

Although I don't quite see how this question follows from the rest of your post, of course there are reasons to have two good mental stats. The obvious one is for multiclasses, and 'mental skillmonkey' is a valid party role in political/mystery games.

As it goes, I'm currently playing a wizard with a spread of 8/8/8/16/16/17 (a half-elf and with the Skilled feat, to boot) and having a lot of fun. She's super squishy, obviously, but incredibly effective outside of combat.
The multiclasses are a good point.

"Mental Skillmonkey" doesn't really make sense to me, since you need to have expertise to really dominate in a skill and no class gets more than a few.

And I know that the game is not best played at high-op, so if I want my concept to work I should probably just swallow the lumps and stat it however it makes the most sense. Is that what you're trying to tell me?

[Naanomi]

Sometimes for skill boosting... Int/Wis on a Knowledge Cleric or Int/Cha on a Lore Bard of the right flavor for example; or an Inquisitive rogue wanting perception and investigation boosted

[Coffee_Dragon]

Sidestepping the actual question asked, I would say that the fluff-crunch correspondence of stats can be said to have a somewhat logarithmic nature. PCs get to invest mechanically in stat for linearly increasing mechanical bonuses, but that doesn't necessarily mean in the fluff an 18 is as superior to a 14 as the 14 is to a 10. You can run into a local commander who's supposed to be tactically savvy, but maybe has an INT score of 11-13 (it helps that D&D doesn't have a tactics/strategy/logistics proficiency). A 12 in a stat that's supposed to be fluff good is perfectly fine if you don't need the crunch good of a +3 bonus. Also as you noted a character shouldn't necessarily match the full profile of a concept from level 1 n00bness.

Str 16
Dex 10
Con 14
Int 12
Wis 10
Cha 12

Variant human point buy for a level 1 fighterer (with 1 stat point to spare depending on which half-feat you fancy) whose flaw is that she hears upper-realm voices telling her to cleanse Frankenrealm of the Londonites.

[strangebloke]

Before I answer this, I have a question for you:

Is there is any reason to NOT have two good mental stats?


Now, to answer your question: if you want to "optimize" a character, going for an all-rounder is counter-intuitive. But logically speaking, having a character who is smart, perceptive and charismatic is the basic of the dashing rogue type.

Any class can fit the bill, though. Most obvious are Bard and Rogue, but Fighter, Paladin, Barbarian, etc, all work.

How does "because it's fun/cool/awesome" sound, as a reason?

I'm a serial DM who almost never gets to play, so I tend to way overthink things when I actually get the chance. I first meant to make this thread, "How should I build this character" and realized that I knew the answer to that question already. Wanna play a paladin? Play one! Wanna have good INT/WIS? Bump those stats up!

So I made this thread with a different topic, and so while it isn't neccesarily getting me good advice for my current character, it's been interesting to see some legitimate examples people have brought up.

Although, a little discouraging as well. It's much as I figured. Casters are the ones who have the space in their build for extra mental stats, since they don't need very high CON or DEX, whereas AT's and EK's and Paladin's and Rangers and the like have more than enough to do with the three good stats they already need.

[Unoriginal]

Although, a little discouraging as well. It's much as I figured. Casters are the ones who have the space in their build for extra mental stats, since they don't need very high CON or DEX

Nope.

If you want to have an "optimized" caster, then the caster needs very high CON and DEX, to increase their survival, while they only ever need their one casting mental stat to be high.


whereas AT's and EK's and Paladin's and Rangers and the like have more than enough to do with the three good stats they already need.

Wrong again. Fighters are the ones who get the more ASI, so they're the ones who get the more "room" to increase their mental stats. Rogues can get away with one good physical stat and then get their mental stats up. Same for Paladins, for different reasons. And the Ranger in principle can be just above average in everything and make it work.

But, again, it's a question of optimization, not of actually playing the character you want.

[JellyPooga]

-WIS in general doesn't really seem... worth it?

Wisdom Saves are the most common mental save by a significant margin and frequently stave off some of the most crippling effects (e.g. Hold Person). Suffering from a "Save-or-Suck/Die" spell hurts a lot. Add to that; one of the (arguably) most important adventuring skills, Perception, is based on Wisdom. Not going in the first turn of combat because you're surprised also sucks. Everyone wants Wisdom. You certainly don't want to dump it and you want to pump it if at all possible. The only exception I can really think of is Paladin, who with his Aura of Protection and proficiency in Wis Saves, can afford not to bother so much with it.

[Grod_The_Giant]

A starting array of 14/14/13/12/12/8 is affordable, and with the right racial boosts can easily give you, oh, a Bard with 16 Cha, 14 Dex and Con, 12 Int and Wis, and 8 Cha. (Heck, if you start vanilla human, you could start with five 14s; you can get away with a starting +2 modifier without too much trouble). That's plenty of stat for your combat purposes, and plenty to roleplay being a good tactician and leader.

[Tanarii]

Human, starting stats 14/14/14/14/14/11
Put the 11 in Con probably given you want good Str/Dex/Int/Wis/Cha, but not required.
Play any class you want. Pick a Background and take skills that support multiple ability scores.
Put 2 ASIs in the one of the '14' ability scores as you level up, to end up with an '18' by level 12 (so 2 out of first 3 ASIs to primary score). Use the other 3 to increase 3 other '14' to '16'.

Done. Now you've got a character with Good ability scores in 4 out of 6 ability scores, as a 16 is above average for an adventurer. And only slightly below average for an adventurer 1 other.
Furthermore, this character is not sub-optimal, the system math "expects" a 16 in your attack stat prior to Tier 3 high levels (11+), and a 18 after. With 20 optional at the Tier 4 epic levels (17-20).
(Edit: Correction, the character is sub-optimal before level 4, when they put the first ASI in their primary score.)

[Pex]

There is a roleplay factor. Do you want your warrior to be book smart and/or streetwise smart or do you just not want to be the dumb jock stereotype? Going with the latter, even with an Intelligence and/or Wisdom of 8, you can justify any and all genius combat tactical play. Being a warrior is what you are trained to do. Your lack of knowledge in other things is because you focused your time in learning how to fight. You are a normal, average character as any NPC in how you talk, what you know, figuring things out, etc. You lack compared to PC adventurers who specialize in those things, but you're not an imbecile. When it comes to the Art of Combat, wizards watch out!

[Nifft]

I have really wanted to play a certain character that's been dwelling in my subconcious for a few years now.

But here's the thing. She's meant to be a great tactician (INT/WIS) and a good leader of men (CHA). She's also supposed to be very competent in melee combat (STR/DEX).

She doesn't need Str and Dex to be competent in melee. Pick one or the other.

She doesn't need Int and Wis to be a great tactician. Arguably she needs neither, since there's no ability roll necessary to be a tactician.

If she's required to be a Paladin, then she probably does want Charisma, but a Battlemaster Fighter could handle the RP requirements reasonably well without much Charisma.

[Psyren]

There are some casters with a weak will save, e.g. Alchemist. So you may want some Wisdom in addition to the main mental stat.

There are also MAD classes that may want two, but these are generally more difficult to play.

[mephnick]

Well, a rogue without a good Int and Wis makes a pretty pathetic trapfinder.

[Joe the Rat]

you could ascribe tactical considerations to Wisdom, with the more strategic factors on Intelligence. Unless your character concept includes "extremely well-read and a keen eye for puzzles," having a modest (10) Int and History or Investigation proficiency (depending on how you are picturing your officer training working) ought to cover your needs.

[Coffee_Dragon]

She doesn't need Int and Wis to be a great tactician. Arguably she needs neither, since there's no ability roll necessary to be a tactician.

Well, the DM can call for an ability check per the usual rules. The fact that there's no associated proficiency doesn't mean no checks.

[Psyren]

Well, a rogue without a good Int and Wis makes a pretty pathetic trapfinder.

Pathfinder rogues get help with that - Canny Observer gives them a hefty untyped bonus to notice traps so they can get by with lower Wis, and disabling them uses Dex rather than Int.

[Laserlight]

Well, the DM can call for an ability check per the usual rules. The fact that there's no associated proficiency doesn't mean no checks.

Get a Background proficiency "Tactician" and go on from there, although I'm not sure what the effects of a good roll would be. Allow other people at the table to give advice on where to put your units? Stiffen morale? Stealth bonus for units in ambush? Initiative bonus?

I'd go for WIS (and Insight) and CHA (for Persuasion) and not worry too much about INT if you don't have the points for it; you might be a genius at moving troops around but never read anything other than tactical manuals.

Bear in mind that "No battle plan survives contact with the enemy" should definitely have the addendum "or my subordinates".

[Unoriginal]

Pathfinder rogues get help with that - Canny Observer gives them a hefty untyped bonus to notice traps so they can get by with lower Wis, and disabling them uses Dex rather than Int.

Pathfinder characters get help with everything, as long as they've made the build for it.

[Tanarii]

Well, a rogue without a good Int and Wis makes a pretty pathetic trapfinder.Just deduce and find clues to the location of traps with Intelligence (Investigation) instead of hoping to notice hints there is something wrong / danger with Wisdom (Perception).

If your DM says that doesn't work, re roll a Monk and take Criminal or Urchin background for Thieves tools.

[strangebloke]

Well, a rogue without a good Int and Wis makes a pretty pathetic trapfinder.

At low levels, yes, but as levels go up the -1 to +5 modifier becomes less and less important. Once you have guidance, expertise, reliable talent, and/or advantage the DCs in the DMG, at least, kind of just go away and cry. And in any case the rogue doesn't need to be the one finding the traps, he just needs to be the one disabling them.

Regardless, if you're just grabbing the stats for skill bonuses... do you have feats available? You're better off taking the relevant skill feat to get expertise, taking a feat that makes the skill check irrelevant (like observant) or just taking magic initiate and getting guidance. Guidance at low levels is equivalent to gaining proficiency in every skill, and expertise in every skill you were proficient in.

Anyway.

My takeaway from this discussion is that you either do it for multiclassing, or for very small (considering the opportunity cost) bonuses to a skill or save. If you want to have multiple mental stats, you're either slightly gimping yourself (which is fine) or you're playing a SAD class like the hexblade or fighter who only really used two stats anyway.

In light of that... hexblade 1/paladin X it is! (DM is waving multiclass requirements.)

[Jamesps]

If I were to make an optimized character with all around good stats I would assuredly go for some sort of multiclass amalgamation that would, at some point, be pretty powerful even if they didn't start out that way.

Here's some classes to consider that will give both significant power boosts and demand above average stats:

War Mage (13 int for a +4 to saves whenever you need them)
Hexblade (Use your charisma for attacking, now you want to raise it to 20)
Paladin (Demands a minimum of 13 strength in addition to charisma, with a possible preference for 15 if you want heavy armor)
Nature Cleric (if you didn't take paladin as your first class this will give you heavy armor and the ability to attack with wisdom)


Obviously taking a 4 class combo is probably unwise, particularly since nature cleric and hexblade overlap in what they provide you. If it were me I'd do a war-mage paladin with a single level in hexblade, and then just pump wisdom up a bit because it's the most useful mental stat and you don't really need any other optimization reason for it. Hexblade will let you get a melee cantrip that should tide you over until you hit 5 levels in paladin. War mage gives you extra spell slots to smite with on top of the one hexblade provides. If you go base human you can end up with some decent all around stats since charisma is the only stat you'll be maximizing.

Assuming point buy for base human:
Str 13 (4 pts)
Con 14 (5 pts)
Dex 14 (5 pts)
Int 13 (4 pts)
Cha 14 (5 pts)
Wis 13 (4 pts)

Or as a half elf with heavy armor:

Str 15 (7pts)
Con 14 (5 pts)
Dex 8 (0 pts)
Int 13 (5 pts)
Cha 16 (7 pts)
Wis 11 (3 pts)

Assuming you go Paladin2/Hexblade1/WarMage2, you'll have 5 spell slots per long rest to smite with, 1 slot per short rest, be able to get bonuses to saves and AC with your reaction, cast rituals, help with healing, and do slightly sub par but still respectable melee /and/ ranged damage with hexblade cantrips by tier 2, all with a perfectly good reason to have above average mental stats across the board.

[mephnick]

Just deduce and find clues to the location of traps with Intelligence (Investigation) instead of hoping to notice hints there is something wrong / danger with Wisdom (Perception).

If your DM says that doesn't work, re roll a Monk and take Criminal or Urchin background for Thieves tools.

So...I can replace Perception with Investigation to notice anything? I don't understand. Is it assumed everyone in the party is constantly and particularly searching every square inch of ground for a trigger?

[Specter]

WIS governs essential skills for all characters, along with one of the biggest saves. Even if you're playing an INT or CHA caster, there's no harm to a high WIS.

[Tanarii]

So...I can replace Perception with Investigation to notice anything? I don't understand. Is it assumed everyone in the party is constantly and particularly searching every square inch of ground for a trigger?
No. If you do that it should automatically succeed if possible and take ten times as long.

If you do it while you're moving along, then it should be passive investigation.

Personally I rule it stops you from generally noticing threats, ie using passive perception to scout for creatures. I could see a DM requiring moving slower too. But neither of those are required rulings.

And you can use Investigation to look for clues, deduce based on those clues, and notice the location of hidden objects. That's not the same as 'notice anything'. Also, it's specifically it's not going to be used when opposing a creatures stealth rolls.

I strongly suspect initially Investigation was going to be the 'Search' skill for traps and hidden compartments and secret doors, and Perception the 'Spot' skill for creatures, and then they realized that's too limiting. But it certainly works fine if you treat them that way, with plenty of crossover between intentionally looking for hints based on deduction, and noticing stuff on the fly from glancing around.

[Desteplo]

Standard point buy before racial bonus you can have 14,14,14,13 in those 4 stats dumping either int/wis and dex. With a paladin In heavy armor is no problem. Those are decent stats. You won’t need to add to them throughout your career.

[Asmotherion]

Some things you might want to consider:

A) Being good at something in 5e does not mean you need your stats to be at 16+. 10 is average. 12 is already above average for RP reasons. 13 is enough to justify multiclassing, meaning you are "remarcable" is that domain", and 14 (which grants a +2) is amazing.

B) You can choose a simple "combat viable" chassis for your character, and make the rest only RP dependent. It's the best way to truely enjoy 5e in my experiance. If you focus too much on optimisation, you end up loosing the RP of the character you intended to make, and making a diferent character than what you intended. Discuss with your group/DM what you are expected to do. A lot of groups don't optimise at all, and simply choose to enjoy their characters, which is a very viable option in 5e.

C) Make the MAD concept, despite it's flaws. It's a character you'll enjoy, right? You said so yourself after all.

[strangebloke]

Standard point buy before racial bonus you can have 14,14,14,13 in those 4 stats dumping either int/wis and dex. With a paladin In heavy armor is no problem. Those are decent stats. You won’t need to add to them throughout your career.
You need STR 15 to get heavy armor.

and you don't need higher than a 14, no, but higher values are still nice. I'm asking, is it ever a good decision from an optimization standpoint.

So...I can replace Perception with Investigation to notice anything? I don't understand. Is it assumed everyone in the party is constantly and particularly searching every square inch of ground for a trigger?

To be fair, DMs tend to handle traps differently, if they use them at all. I don't, generally, except under very special circumstances.

[Nifft]

Get a Background proficiency "Tactician" and go on from there, although I'm not sure what the effects of a good roll would be. Allow other people at the table to give advice on where to put your units? Stiffen morale? Stealth bonus for units in ambush? Initiative bonus?

The thing is, though: the units under your command are the other people at the table.

Hmm, so perhaps Bard would be the best choice.

Vicious Mockery => Tactical Sabotage.

Hand out Tactical Inspiration.

Etc.

[mephnick]

I strongly suspect initially Investigation was going to be the 'Search' skill for traps and hidden compartments and secret doors, and Perception the 'Spot' skill for creatures, and then they realized that's too limiting. But it certainly works fine if you treat them that way, with plenty of crossover between intentionally looking for hints based on deduction, and noticing stuff on the fly from glancing around.

Hmm, that's not a bad idea.



To be fair, DMs tend to handle traps differently, if they use them at all. I don't, generally, except under very special circumstances.

All the traps I use are extremely easy to spot, but must still be dealt with. (Hallway full of blades etc.) I don't use "got'cha" traps unless the situation requires it (hastily built kobold traps).

Tanarii's passive Investigation for traps may actually fit my style better than it seems.

[N810]

Maybe you want to RP some sort of crazy multiclass like Wizard/Monk ? :elan:

[Tanarii]

All the traps I use are extremely easy to spot, but must still be dealt with. (Hallway full of blades etc.) I don't use "got'cha" traps unless the situation requires it (hastily built kobold traps).

Tanarii's passive Investigation for traps may actually fit my style better than it seems.I use traps that way too.

I actually allow either passive Investigation if you declare you're looking for traps, or passive investigation if you don't, to find the hints that a trap is there (investigation) or a clue that there is something wrong (perception). Passive Investigation usually (but not always) provides more direct hints that it's a trap.
Then I allow Investigation roll (quick further investigation) or auto success (take ten minutes, and time usually matters IMC) to find details available for that specific trap, usually locate trigger and/or source of traps attack.
Then it's up to the party to figure out what to do about it. (They can skip looking for extra details or fail that, so sometimes they're figuring out what to do just based on whatever they noticed initially.)

Unless they're being careless about who is scouting / in front, they'll almost always notice the initial hints that something's up.

If you look at DMg and XtgE traps, some require Investigatiing something (e.g. finding the needle trap on a lock or compartment) and others allow perception (noticing tracks going around a pit trap, noticing a trigger flagstone). I kinda blur that line a little, and divide them up into passive perception or investigation to notice something is off/find clues vs rolled investigation (or auto success with time) to locate/figure out where there's a trigger, source of attack, or trap device one you've found a clue/hint.

That means a scout actually can get away with Intelligence and/or Investigation alone, or scout or front line in the marching order can have decent passive perception, then the trap/Int (investigation) guy moves up to investigate more fully.

But DMs definitely do it differently though, so it's worth asking a DM what's good before you make a scout or front line character.

[sambojin]

I know they're not usually allowed, but Mystic can have the whole "tactical genius" thing going with some of their disciplines, and the other powers are keyed off Int anyway, so you're smart and casty, as well as possibly pretty fighty with a bit of multiclassing too.

Just going Fighter BM can also cover a lot of what you're going for as well. BM dice uses can make you look a lot smarter, wiser, and more charismatic than your Int, Wis and Cha suggest.

Moon druids can actually get enough charisma to go party face if they want, especially if you dip a level or two of warlock for it to be worthwhile in combat too. You might not be super smart, but you look a lot smarter than anyone you've hexxed into being dumb, and intelligence is often a situationally comparative thing, not just a stat. There's very little reason to not have two good, or at least reasonable, mental stats as a druid, since you're throwing optimization out the window by being the class anyway. Even without multiclassing or stats, your spells cover a lot of being good at stuff anyway (PwT, Enhance Ability, Guidance, etc). This can just as easily be looked at as strategic genius, knowing stuff, deep wisdom, charismatic inspiration, etc. Conjuring in a bunch of plebs in battle can be looked at as "strategy" too.


((If traps really are a problem, a Druid has probably got pretty good perception, maybe investigation, Guidance, an animal's worth of HP to "disarm" it with, and a Find Traps spell on your list if you're really, really worried about them))

[Naanomi]

Note that in published modules, they are very inconsistent about what finds traps... passive/active perception, investigation, or choice of either all appear as options

[the secret fire]

Don't forget that under standard point buy, getting a stat to 13 is the cheapest and most efficient option (as you are paying for stat increases on a 1-for-1 basis). This helps MAD concepts if done correctly. Say you want to make an elven Arcane Trickster who takes a single level dip into Light Cleric. This is pretty MAD, as you will want Dex, Con, Int, and Wis. But an initial stat array like this:

Str: 9 (1)
Dex: 17 (9)
Con: 13 (5)
Int: 14 (7)
Wis: 14 (5)
Cha: 8 (0)

...will serve you well. You can get the Dex to 18 with the excellent Elven Accuracy, and get the Con to 14 with Resilient (Con) while also picking up the one save proficiency that high level Rogues lack. Your casting stats aren't tip-top, but you'll get by just fine with those, and still be competent at throwing save-or-sucks, and great at it once you get Magical Ambush at 9th level AT.

Compare this to a High Elf who just goes straight AT and starts with the following:

Str: 8 (0)
Dex: 17 (9)
Con: 13 (5)
Int: 16 (9)
Wis: 12 (4)
Cha: 8 (0)

Same proposed feat progression (Elven Accuracy and Resilient (Con)). Your Int is higher, so that's fun, but that only makes you marginally better at throwing save-or-sucks, and it comes at the cost of having a lower Wis, and not enjoying the benefits of the multiclass. So your buddy is one level behind you as an AT and has an Int modifier one below yours, but his Wis-based saves and skills will be better, he'll be able to use a shield, he'll have two uses of Warding Flare per day, and he'll be able to spam Light Cleric cantrips and 1st level spells as he sees fit, including Guidance, Bless, Healing Word and Faerie Fire, among other useful options.

I guess it depends on your definition of a "high stat", but there's a good argument that the MADder concept here (the one level Cleric dip), actually yields a stronger character, overall. I'd say the best argument for having two strong mental stats is going to be something like the above, where you have a tight multiclass concept which requires both of them to be viable.

[sambojin]

On this front, you can get 8/10/16/8/16/16 with a half elf druid from points buy. Just assume your brains come from your wisdom and your spells, and your combat ability from wildshape. You can dump the 16 Con for other stuff, but that covers a lot of the big saves you'll need. Is being a charismatic druid worth it, or even remotely what you envision for your character? Ummm, maybe?

[Azgeroth]

if the question is, does this character make sense from an optimisation standpoint then...

what exactly are you intending this character to excel at?? a jack of all trades, who is master of none, is the most optimised character for a skill monkey.. not, for a tanking brute.. context my friend!

you mentioned wanting martial prowess but also Witt and cunning, as others have said being a 'tactician' in 5e is not really stat dependant, BM fighters are some of the best 'tactical' characters around, utterly not int dependant, but again, what does it mean to be tactical? you 'just' have to be able to deploy your forces in strategically advantageous positions.. but even a general who dictates movements of entire battalions does not micro manage those forces, unless your T3 or T4 your at best a captain..

you can totally be a BM fighter, with a 12 int or wis, and a 12+ cha and be a damn fine leader of men..

so what kind of wit are we talking about, the kind to spot the tell of a liar, the one who notices the scratches on the floor of a hidden door, or simply the one who recognises most every heraldry or symbol in the known world..

some of that just needs a background, or a feat, not inherantly stat dependant, you can always just take proficiency in that skill, pick a relevant ribbon ability and hey presto! a not MAD, viable optimised (for this concept) character..

[Tanarii]

If you want to eventually be a renowned fantasy tactician-general type, make a Battle Master, arrange stats as 15/8/14/13/10/12, choose the noble background for History and persuasion. Take calligraphy at level 3. Bam. Instant samurai / general-to-be.

As a side note, I was disappointed when they released the 'Samurai' subclass, since Fighters already had one. It was just called Battle Master.

[mephnick]

As a side note, I was disappointed when they released the 'Samurai' subclass, since Fighters already had one. It was just called Battle Master.

I think that's why I've been pretty lukewarm about all the Fighter subclasses since the Core books. Like, you could already make anything you wanted out of the 3 subclasses in the PhB so everything that's come after has just been unnecessary fluff.

[samcifer]

Leela: "...And Fry, you have that brain-thing."

Fry: "I told you I already did!"

[samcifer]

I think that's why I've been pretty lukewarm about all the Fighter subclasses since the Core books. Like, you could already make anything you wanted out of the 3 subclasses in the PhB so everything that's come after has just been unnecessary fluff.

My issue with the Xanathar's fighter subclasses was that you only get 2 uses on average and that number never increases as you gain levels in the class. Poor design on those and makes them too limited to be appealing as features.

[Tanarii]

I think that's why I've been pretty lukewarm about all the Fighter subclasses since the Core books. Like, you could already make anything you wanted out of the 3 subclasses in the PhB so everything that's come after has just been unnecessary fluff.
I don't object to new subclasses, or the new Samurai subclass. It's just the name that irritated me, since I'd already mentally renamed "Battlemaster" to Samurai. Since it was quite clear to me that's exactly what it was supposed to be. Also "Warlord" would do just as well as a generic name. ;) But I get that some people see Samurai as solo-dueling warriors, not warriors who lead armies or experts at small squad combat and group-friendly manuevers.

[Citan]

I have really wanted to play a certain character that's been dwelling in my subconcious for a few years now.

But here's the thing. She's meant to be a great tactician (INT/WIS) and a good leader of men (CHA). She's also supposed to be very competent in melee combat (STR/DEX).

For fluff reasons I wanted to play a paladin, but as far as I can tell, there is no reason to ever make a character like this.

The best Idea I had was to play a very SAD build, like a Hexblade, and to boost INT or WIS just because I could. Alternately, play a fighter and start with a low spread and then compensate with the extra ASIs. Both these options make the internal optimizer in me cry out in pain and loathing.

Is there ever any reason to have two good mental stats?


Sure, it's to bolster your weak saves. :)

You can also replace some of the mental stats with feats, if you like. The good leader attribute can be the Inspiring Leader feat instead of pumping CHA up all the way. The tactician can be Martial Adept with Commander's Strike or Maneuvering Strike as your maneuvers, so that your tactics actually have a mechanical representation.


At low levels, yes, but as levels go up the -1 to +5 modifier becomes less and less important. Once you have guidance, expertise, reliable talent, and/or advantage the DCs in the DMG, at least, kind of just go away and cry. And in any case the rogue doesn't need to be the one finding the traps, he just needs to be the one disabling them.

Regardless, if you're just grabbing the stats for skill bonuses... do you have feats available? You're better off taking the relevant skill feat to get expertise, taking a feat that makes the skill check irrelevant (like observant) or just taking magic initiate and getting guidance. Guidance at low levels is equivalent to gaining proficiency in every skill, and expertise in every skill you were proficient in.

Anyway.

My takeaway from this discussion is that you either do it for multiclassing, or for very small (considering the opportunity cost) bonuses to a skill or save. If you want to have multiple mental stats, you're either slightly gimping yourself (which is fine) or you're playing a SAD class like the hexblade or fighter who only really used two stats anyway.

In light of that... hexblade 1/paladin X it is! (DM is waving multiclass requirements.)
Hi!
Coming a bit late to the discussion. ;)

From what I read in your OP post, I'd suggest that LeonBH provides the most sensible solution.
As you said yourself, in some of your posts...
- When you can get Expertise and other kinds of buffs on checks, stats are less relevant.
- Multiple mental stats are usually made relevant in the context of multiclassing, more rarely otherwise.

So, ideally (temporarily putting aside the pain of multiclassing builds) you'd want...
- Paladin 2: because smiting is the defining feature of Pals, plus spells.
- Bard 3 or Rogue 1 (or both): because Expertise is dandy.
- Battlemaster 3: because Manoeuvers are a direct translation in mechanics of orders a tactician could give.
- Enhance Ability: because always good to give advantage. Plus can be refluffed. :=)
- Hexblade Warlock: because SADness.
- Knowledge Cleric: because proficiency in whatever you want every short rest.

I'd daresay the simplest way to go would be Paladin 2 / Valor Bard X: you can get Expertise in two skills, Extra Attack, Bardic Inspiration, Smite (with heaps of slots) and still get spaces for ASIs and feats.
You can always drop a level of Hexblade Warlock if you really want to.

Alternatives could be getting Knowledge Cleric somewhere (especially since your DM waived the requirements).
Or you could instead pick Divine Soul Sorcerer on top of Valor Bard / Paladin chassis: Twin Haste or Twin Enhance Ability could certainly be fluffed as you empowering words of encouragement for example... :)

[strangebloke]

Hi!
Coming a bit late to the discussion. ;)

From what I read in your OP post, I'd suggest that LeonBH provides the most sensible solution.
As you said yourself, in some of your posts...
- When you can get Expertise and other kinds of buffs on checks, stats are less relevant.
- Multiple mental stats are usually made relevant in the context of multiclassing, more rarely otherwise.

So, ideally (temporarily putting aside the pain of multiclassing builds) you'd want...
- Paladin 2: because smiting is the defining feature of Pals, plus spells.
- Bard 3 or Rogue 1 (or both): because Expertise is dandy.
- Battlemaster 3: because Manoeuvers are a direct translation in mechanics of orders a tactician could give.
- Enhance Ability: because always good to give advantage. Plus can be refluffed. :=)
- Hexblade Warlock: because SADness.
- Knowledge Cleric: because proficiency in whatever you want every short rest.

I'd daresay the simplest way to go would be Paladin 2 / Valor Bard X: you can get Expertise in two skills, Extra Attack, Bardic Inspiration, Smite (with heaps of slots) and still get spaces for ASIs and feats.
You can always drop a level of Hexblade Warlock if you really want to.

Alternatives could be getting Knowledge Cleric somewhere (especially since your DM waived the requirements).
Or you could instead pick Divine Soul Sorcerer on top of Valor Bard / Paladin chassis: Twin Haste or Twin Enhance Ability could certainly be fluffed as you empowering words of encouragement for example... :)

Thanks for the thoughtful reply!

As far as my build goes (which I realize is not the main point of interest for most people in the thread) I don't really feel the need for expertise since there is no 'tactician skill.' Hex 1/Paladin X actually opens things up a lot as far as stats go. My build:

Female Vhuman hexblade.
Background:noble
skills: Religion, Intimidation, History, Persuasion

STR-10 (DM's using encumbrance rules. I need ten strength just to function)
DEX-13+1 (medium armor)
CON-13+1
INT-12
WIS-12
CHA-15+1 (picked up the 'menacing' feat from vhuman)

The menacing feat was an odd choice. I may end up subbing it for inspiring leader. I figure that growling at recruits and smack-talking enemy commander's is pretty stylistically appropriate. My stats are functional, but I feel like 12 INT and 12 WIS is more than enough to justify a pretty crafty sort of commander. Noble background and warlock both grant me knowledge skills, which fits with the image of a learned tactician sort. Given how frequently INT is dumped there's a decent chance I'll be the best informed in the party.

Really, I think you're right that battlemaster probably makes more sense... But I loathe fighters and their awful super-genericness.