How big a difference between a +4 and +5 modifier?

[Spacehamster]

As a valor/swords bard that want to focus more on the physical part of combat and perhaps grab an extra feat, would you guys say 18 CHA is enough to last the game out? After all it’s only a 5% bigger risk to miss/have monsters pass the save compared to 20 CHA.

[Mikal]

It's also one less Bardic Inspiration die, so one less Blade Flourish. Personally, that's the larger loss of not getting 20 Charisma for you IMO (until bard level 14).

That's one reason why I like mixing Hexblade with College of Blades- Let's you max that Charisma with a clear conscience.

Take a single level just for AB access for a ranged option and for Charisma to your attack and damage, or two if you want Agonizing Blast.

[DivisibleByZero]

Max stats are certainly nice, but they are not required in 5e.

[Unoriginal]

As a valor/swords bard that want to focus more on the physical part of combat and perhaps grab an extra feat, would you guys say 18 CHA is enough to last the game out? After all it’s only a 5% bigger risk to miss/have monsters pass the save compared to 20 CHA.

Sure. You can probably go for CHA 14 without that much issues, even (though of course you won't be amazing at CHA if you do that).

[Aett_Thorn]

Sure. You can probably go for CHA 14 without that much issues, even (though of course you won't be amazing at CHA if you do that).

Might as well go Valor Bard at that point, though.

[Willie the Duck]

If you build the character around the concepts, nearly any score is possible. All the Eldritch Knights with Int as a dump stat attest to that. As Mikal alludes to, classes that use their stats for more than enemy save DCs and attack spell attack rolls (so bards, paladins) are going to have more mental weighting than, say, wizards. But not so much as fighters, who have to balance boosting their 16 Str (now) vs. taking a combat centric feat (wherein the feat and the ASI are both contributing to the same activity).

[Joe the Rat]

If you use up all of your inspiration dice between short rests, and still use a fair number of save spells, you may want that 20 CHA.
If you aren't feeling pinched for dice, and want to bolster your almost-every-turn actions, go for it.

[ad_hoc]

If you had a 10 Cha would you want a 12?

If you had 12 would you want 14?

If you had 14 would you want 16?

You can stay at 18 or go to 20. The game won't implode either way.

[LeonBH]

It feels really annoying when you roll a 16 and the target was 17, and you know you could have chosen to bump your main stat up for that +1.

But statistically, you will feel that 5% difference once every 20 rolls. One roll in 20 attack rolls/saving throws/ability checks that use your Charisma modifier will be just one short.

[strangebloke]

Just to note that '5%' is really not a complete picture of how a +1 affects the success/failure rate of people who are saving against your spells. You have to look at the expected outcome.

For instance, say the guy has a 50% chance of succeeding on his save. When I cast hold person on him, the expected outcome is 50% of hold person. I raise my DC by one, and the chance of him failing increases from 50% to 55%. 55/50 is equivalent to 110/100. In other words, a +1 to my DC is comparable to a 10% increase in the expected outcome of the spell I've cast.

If the guy has a 15% chance of failing, a +1 to the DC increases the value of your expected outcome by a third.

Conversely, if the guy has a 90% chance of failing, you really are only improving your expected outcome by 5%.

So the value of a +1 to a save DC is dependent on the saves of the enemies you're targeting. Similarly, the value of a +1 to your attack is dependent on enemy AC. And of course there are other benefits to boosting CHA that are probably more significant in this specific case.

[Easy_Lee]

I suggest you take one level in Hexblade and maximize your CHA. In addition to the other benefits, you'll be able to afford better overall stats and more feats in the process. Both a Sword and Valor Bard benefit from this, but a Valor bard might eventually acquire the ability to cast Eldritch Blast and make attacks on the same turn. That's quite something even before we think of attacks, spell saves, and inspiration die.

[Tanarii]

Analysis of game math in regards to expected monster AC vs typical opponents (CR level - 3) shows it never expects players to get an 20. It expects a 16 up to level 10, and 18 after that.

Theres no DMG table of "expected save bonus vs spells", so it's harder to see if they had a target chance of success or not. given that they actually set the typical chance of success much lower for save spells than attacks at low levels, and that save bonuses can be wildly all over the place for a given creature, but you can (in theory) target different saves intentionally based on what you know about a creature, it's entirely possible they had to just wing it.

Or you can figure that you should scale it at the same rate as attack bonuses. In which case a 20 is good, but assume it's never required by game math just to be on par.

[Cynthaer]

Just to note that '5%' is really not a complete picture of how a +1 affects the success/failure rate of people who are saving against your spells. You have to look at the expected outcome.

[...]

So the value of a +1 to a save DC is dependent on the saves of the enemies you're targeting. Similarly, the value of a +1 to your attack is dependent on enemy AC. And of course there are other benefits to boosting CHA that are probably more significant in this specific case.

So, this comes up every time the topic's mentioned, and I do fundamentally agree with your point, but I also think most people's intuition of what "5%" means in this context is more or less accurate.

That is to say, anybody who's thinking "oh, that just means I'll deal 5% more damage on average; that's not much" is dead wrong and needs to rethink how the percentages work. But anybody who's thinking "well, that's one more value on the d20 that's a success instead of failure" is basically on the right track even if they don't dive deep into the hit rates.

I'm not really arguing against anything you're saying here, or even your decision to say it. I just worry that the back-and-forth over "it's technically a 25% increase here" vs. "it's always 5% by definition" gets more contentious than is really necessary, since I think most of us are intuitively close enough for gameplay and optimization purposes.

EDIT: On-topic, as Tanarii says, the game math doesn't assume ASIs up to 20 just to keep up with scaling defenses. This is a good thing, because it means that choosing to go to 20 is effectively choosing to specialize in consistency of hitrate and damage (plus whatever other bonuses you get for that stat), rather than specializing in whatever else you could be doing with that ASI.

[Cybren]

A difference of 1, or 25%.

[Tanarii]

EDIT: On-topic, as Tanarii says, the game math doesn't assume ASIs up to 20 just to keep up with scaling defenses. This is a good thing, because it means that choosing to go to 20 is effectively choosing to specialize in consistency of hitrate and damage (plus whatever other bonuses you get for that stat), rather than specializing in whatever else you could be doing with that ASI.
Well said. Going to 20 means being above 'par', being ahead of the game in a specific area. The question is if being ahead in that area is more valuable than the options. Given its a powerful option to be ahead of the game in that area, it's unsurprising many people value it so highly compared to (for example) raising a secondary or tertiary stat. Conversely it's often considered carefully if the alternative is a powerful Feat.

[Mikal]

Well said. Going to 20 means being above 'par', being ahead of the game in a specific area. The question is if being ahead in that area is more valuable than the options. Given its a powerful option to be ahead of the game in that area, it's unsurprising many people value it so highly compared to (for example) raising a secondary or tertiary stat. Conversely it's often considered carefully if the alternative is a powerful Feat.

That's also a reason why if I start out with an 18 or 19 in a primary stat I don't feel bad on holding off until my level 12 or so ASI/Feat to get it to 20.
Since the system balances partially around the 16-18 range in those stats it gives leeway to pick feats instead.

Still, per my original post, it's not the spell DCs that matter here as you're focusing less on spellcasting and more on melee, as much as the bardic inspiration you lose out on for Blade Flourishes. Hence my recommendation to pick up 1-2 levels of Hexblade.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I will note that on the flip side (monster saves), there is a problem that occurs when player DCs get too high. Specifically, lower-CR creatures may not be able to make a save if it isn't their prime stat.

I had this happen--I was too lax and gave out +2 DC items (the warlock rod and a related homebrewed one for a druid) and the players had gotten Tomes (they're level 19). That meant that my CR 6 creatures with a +2 CON or WIS couldn't pass their saves or could only pass on a 20. It was fine since they're in a gonzo part of the campaign, but it was an eye-opener.

Rule of thumb for me for making monsters--add proficiency to at least one of the major saves (DEX/CON/WIS) once you hit tier 2 (CR 5+) monsters.

[Mikal]

I will note that on the flip side (monster saves), there is a problem that occurs when player DCs get too high. Specifically, lower-CR creatures may not be able to make a save if it isn't their prime stat.

I had this happen--I was too lax and gave out +2 DC items (the warlock rod and a related homebrewed one for a druid) and the players had gotten Tomes (they're level 19). That meant that my CR 6 creatures with a +2 CON or WIS couldn't pass their saves or could only pass on a 20. It was fine since they're in a gonzo part of the campaign, but it was an eye-opener.

Rule of thumb for me for making monsters--add proficiency to at least one of the major saves (DEX/CON/WIS) once you hit tier 2 (CR 5+) monsters.

Or.. you let your players who focused on their primary stats have nice things and let the enemies fail those saves, instead of going "ha ha good job trying to be good at spells". And of course, vet +2 DC items and their impact before giving them out to people.

I'd be PO'ed if my DM decided to say "well you got a high score and an item I okayed, so I'm countering it for no reason except you got a high score and item that boosts your save.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Or.. you let your players who focused on their primary stats have nice things and let the enemies fail those saves, instead of going "ha ha good job trying to be good at spells". And of course, vet +2 DC items and their impact before giving them out to people.

I'd be PO'ed if my DM decided to say "well you got a high score and an item I okayed, so I'm countering it for no reason except you got a high score and item that boosts your save.

For these monsters (once I realized the problem), I just let it roll. Those were just fodder to burn resources (which, due to my awful rolls among other things, they did poorly at, but...). In the future when designing monsters, I will add the appropriate save proficiencies. There's a big difference there.

[Cybren]

I will note that on the flip side (monster saves), there is a problem that occurs when player DCs get too high. Specifically, lower-CR creatures may not be able to make a save if it isn't their prime stat.

I had this happen--I was too lax and gave out +2 DC items (the warlock rod and a related homebrewed one for a druid) and the players had gotten Tomes (they're level 19). That meant that my CR 6 creatures with a +2 CON or WIS couldn't pass their saves or could only pass on a 20. It was fine since they're in a gonzo part of the campaign, but it was an eye-opener.

Rule of thumb for me for making monsters--add proficiency to at least one of the major saves (DEX/CON/WIS) once you hit tier 2 (CR 5+) monsters.

That's... the entire point. They're level 19 and you're worried that CR6 enemies aren't good enough against them?

[Mikal]

For these monsters (once I realized the problem), I just let it roll. Those were just fodder to burn resources (which, due to my awful rolls among other things, they did poorly at, but...). In the future when designing monsters, I will add the appropriate save proficiencies. There's a big difference there.

No there isn't. You're specifically metagaming enemies to have saves they normally wouldn't have to counter the PCs from focusing on their spellcasting resource, instead of letting the PCs focus on that resource provide them the advantage it should give.

The appropriate save proficiencies are what's in the MM, not tailored just to counter the PCs because the PCs have X. The only time you should do that as a DM is if it makes logical in game sense. I.E. an intelligent NPC with access to magic or magical items boosts their save vs. X somehow, or trains and gains the ability to shrug off certain spell effects better (by adding Resilient:XX as an ability/feat), and should be rare.

Just saying "Now all monsters have proficiency in wisdom saves because your casting stat is now 20 and you like using wisdom targeting spells" is a bad call.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's... the entire point. They're level 19 and you're worried that CR6 enemies aren't good enough against them?

Bounded accuracy. Bounded accuracy. CR 6 should still (in appropriate quantities) represent a medium challenge. But because they couldn't make their saves, they were a much reduced challenge.

Based on the guidance from XGtE, CR 6 creatures trade at 2:1 (two monsters per PC) for a medium challenge.

[Cybren]

They should be a medium challenge in the aggregate, and it represents depletion of resources. Like the resources spent to use abilities that automatically kill CR 6 enemies if they fail a save

[PhoenixPhyre]

They should be a medium challenge in the aggregate, and it represents depletion of resources. Like the resources spent to use abilities that automatically kill CR 6 enemies if they fail a save

Yes. But they weren't. They were (in aggregate) an easy challenge at best. Not a huge issue either way, but it felt off.

[mephnick]

Based on the guidance from XGtE, CR 6 creatures trade at 2:1 (two monsters per PC) for a medium challenge.

Remember all this is based on:

No Multiclassing
No Feats
Few Useful Magic Items/Random Magic Items (ie players not gifted primary magic weapons that match needs)
Standard array

If you don't follow those guidelines (most don't) you really need to treat your party as a couple levels higher than they are.

But yeah, targeting weak saves at high levels is where Bounded Accuracy falls apart a bit.

[Mikal]

But yeah, targeting weak saves at high levels is where Bounded Accuracy falls apart a bit.

As it should. Expending resources to be specialized should be rewarded when that specialty comes up, not countered in a metagame way (though again, if it was logical in game to do so, exceptions should rarely be permitted).

Spending those resources makes you deficient elsewhere after all, and that's where the player pays the price. Not by buffing enemies to counter the strength, but reminding the players that strength comes with a commensurate weakness.. without throwing only those enemies who can target that weakness at them all the time.

[Tanarii]

Based on the guidance from XGtE, CR 6 creatures trade at 2:1 (two monsters per PC) for a medium challenge.
DMG says up to 3-4 Easy, 5-6 Medium, 6+ Hard or more, for four member party.

Of course, I've not run Tier 4 so I have no idea how accurate the DMG estimates are. But it sounds like in theory, 1.5x the number of the party in CR 6 should still be a Medium challenge. Put another way, the PCs should be able to survive 2 of them back to back between short tests without too much strain.

I find that surprising, but does sound like what Bounded Accuracy was intended to achieve.

[Easy_Lee]

Even if you're fighting a CR 6 monster at level 20, +1 is better than a 5% increase in success. Assuming +10 to hit and the CR 6 has 16 AC, hit chance increases from 80% to 85%, meaning damage goes up by 6.25%. Higher monster AC means greater gains in damage.

This applies equally to saving throws. A bonus of 2 is good enough to pass a DC 18 saving throw 25% of the time. Drop that to 20% and your effectiveness increases by 6.67%. If the bonus was 7, you're now 10% more effective.

[PhoenixPhyre]

DMG says up to 3-4 Easy, 5-6 Medium, 6+ Hard or more, for four member party.

Of course, I've not run Tier 4 so I have no idea how accurate the DMG estimates are. But it sounds like in theory, 1.5x the number of the party in CR 6 should still be a Medium challenge. Put another way, the PCs should be able to survive 2 of them back to back between short tests without too much strain.

I find that surprising, but does sound like what Bounded Accuracy was intended to achieve.

Yeah, they took on 4 such combats back to back without needing a short rest (or taking significant damage). Spent a couple spell slots, but not a significant number (2-3 each, 2 ki points from the monk). Didn't help that my dice like them a lot and rolled like crap for attacks and saves...:smallfurious:

[mephnick]

As it should. Specializing should be rewarded, not countered in a metagame way (though again, if it was logical in game to do so, exceptions should rarely be permitted).

I don't think it would be "meta" on behalf of the system to have weak saves raise at least somewhat over the course of the entire CR/leveling system, but it's not a big deal to me. Just one of my few gripes.

[Mikal]

I don't think it would be "meta" on behalf of the system to have weak saves raise at least somewhat over the course of the entire CR/leveling system, but it's not a big deal to me. Just one of my few gripes.

The DM is specifically raising the saves on enemies solely to counter the player's higher DC, with no logical in game reason for it. That's totally metagaming and a lazy way to solve it which your player would rightly be mad about if they ever discovered it. It's bad DMing.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't think it would be "meta" on behalf of the system to have weak saves raise at least somewhat over the course of the entire CR/leveling system, but it's not a big deal to me. Just one of my few gripes.

I have no problem if the players had attacked a weak save and been able to blow past it. If you have a non-proficient save with a -1 mod, you're screwed if someone targets it. But these were the 2nd best abilities the creature had (+4 STR, +2 CON/DEX) and were major saves. That's why I'm going with adding a save proficiency to one of the 3 majors past CR 6. Still have weaknesses, but they shouldn't be pushovers.

Oh, and rethinking how many numerical bonuses I give people. More flavor items, fewer +X items.

[Mikal]

I have no problem if the players had attacked a weak save and been able to blow past it. If you have a non-proficient save with a -1 mod, you're screwed if someone targets it. But these were the 2nd best abilities the creature had (+4 STR, +2 CON/DEX) and were major saves. That's why I'm going with adding a save proficiency to one of the 3 majors past CR 6. Still have weaknesses, but they shouldn't be pushovers.

Oh, and rethinking how many numerical bonuses I give people. More flavor items, fewer +X items.

Why shouldn't they be pushovers? They're CR 6 creatures fighting Level 19 PCs with a max stat and item that further boosts spell DC.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The DM is specifically raising the saves on enemies solely to counter the player's higher DC, with no logical in game reason for it. That's totally metagaming and a lazy way to solve it which your player would rightly be mad about if they ever discovered it. It's bad DMing.

Edit: Why shouldn't they be pushovers? They're CR 6 creatures fighting Level 19 PCs with a max stat and item that further boosts spell DC.


No, you entirely misunderstood me. I did nothing to those monsters. They died. I will, when I'm making monsters later (for different groups, since this one is almost done), remember to include save proficiencies in appropriate saving throws.

That's a huge difference. One is "oh, I forgot to add this, I'll do better in the future", the other is "no you can't have nice things."

Edit: Because the system math says they shouldn't be. As in, I mis-balanced the encounters. Had I known, I'd have adjusted the encounter instead (different monsters). Bounded accuracy says that lower level things should remain a threat if the numbers are right. These ones (despite having the right numbers) weren't a threat. So that should get fixed. Later. For other groups. Because as a DM I like having encounters that don't waste everyone's time. If the enemies can't hit the party and the party can't miss the enemies, there's no point in running the encounter (or at least running more than one of them).

[Mikal]

No, you entirely misunderstood me. I did nothing to those monsters. They died. I will, when I'm making monsters later (for different groups, since this one is almost done), remember to include save proficiencies in appropriate saving throws.

That's a huge difference. One is "oh, I forgot to add this, I'll do better in the future", the other is "no you can't have nice things."

No, I do get it. You're talking about boosting the saves of NPCs for no reason than that your PCs have reached a certain plateau of power. I don't like it either, for the reasons I've stated.

By adding this, you aren't "doing better in the future". You're nerfing those who specialize for no reason except that they specialized. It's lazy, bad DMing, and again, your player should rightly be upset if and when they found out it's done.

EDIT: That's not a judgment on you as a person, just saying the action itself is something I find fault with.

[PhoenixPhyre]

No, I do get it. You're talking about boosting the saves of NPCs for no reason than that your PCs have reached a certain plateau of power. I don't like it either, for the reasons I've stated.

By adding this, you aren't "doing better in the future". You're nerfing those who specialize for no reason except that they specialized. It's lazy, bad DMing, and again, your player should rightly be upset if and when they found out it's done.

Der what?

I have a few options. Either adjust the monsters (which you say can't be done justly), give fewer toys (which also hurts people), or ... what? wasting everyone's time with encounters that don't mean anything?

I agree that changing a monster that's in play is bad DMing. Changing how I build/select monsters in the future to prevent issues of un-fun (which this was, both for the players and for me) is absolutely not bad DMing.

[Tanarii]

I agree that changing a monster that's in play is bad DMing. Changing how I build/select monsters in the future to prevent issues of un-fun (which this was, both for the players and for me) is absolutely not bad DMing.Not to mention the sheer amount judgementalism it takes to use the term "bad DMing" in the first place says more about the person saying it than the person it's being directed at.

[Mikal]

Der what?

I have a few options. Either adjust the monsters (which you say can't be done justly), give fewer toys (which also hurts people), or ... what? wasting everyone's time with encounters that don't mean anything?

If the PCs have a way to defeat X easily, you don't counter with Y as a DM just because they now have X.
Personally? I'd do nothing. If they are fighting CR 6 enemies and they have 20+ in a stat plus items, then yes, I expect them to steamroll through them at level 19. There's a reason why you're supposed to have on average 8 encounters a day if you want to fully use up a PCs resources.

It's a marathon if you're trying to use the CR guidelines when it comes to resource depletion, not a sprint.
That means the first batch of CR 6s are steamrolled. The sixth group is where things start getting dicey.


I agree that changing a monster that's in play is bad DMing. Changing how I build/select monsters in the future to prevent issues of un-fun (which this was, both for the players and for me) is absolutely not bad DMing.

Yes, actually, it is bad DMing. You're basically saying "feel free to specialize if you want, it won't matter though because I'm going to up things so that your efforts are worthless."

That, to me, is "un-fun".


Not to mention the sheer amount judgementalism it takes to use the term "bad DMing" in the first place says more about the person saying it than the person it's being directed at.

Oh no. I called a DM out for doing something that's bad. I'm such a terrible person that my argument somehow doesn't have merit. Oh wait, it does. Ad Hominem much?

[mephnick]

I agree that changing a monster that's in play is bad DMing. Changing how I build/select monsters in the future to prevent issues of un-fun (which this was, both for the players and for me) is absolutely not bad DMing.

Agreed. Buffing saves and hit points to get tougher monsters is fair game and like..the most basic DMing there is. The statblocks are just an average, for example not all Ogres have 16 CON, they can vary weaker or stronger.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If the PCs have a way to defeat X easily, you don't counter with Y as a DM just because they now have X.
Personally? I'd do nothing. If they are fighting CR 6 enemies and they have 20+ in a stat plus items, then yes, I expect them to steamroll through them at level 19. There's a reason why you're supposed to have on average 8 encounters a day if you want to fully use up a PCs resources.

It's a marathon if you're trying to use the CR guidelines when it comes to resource depletion, not a sprint.
That means the first batch of CR 6s are steamrolled. The sixth group is where things start getting dicey.



Yes, actually, it is bad DMing. You're basically saying "feel free to specialize if you want, it won't matter though because I'm going to up things so that your efforts are worthless."

That, to me, is "un-fun".



Oh no. I called a DM out for doing something that's bad. I'm such a terrible person that my argument somehow doesn't have merit. Oh wait, it does. Ad Hominem much?

Ok, I think we're done here. This is both off-topic and you're seriously tendentially misreading me.

[Mikal]

Ok, I think we're done here. This is both off-topic and you're seriously tendentially misreading me.

No. I'm not. You said you were boosting NPC saves to counter the strength level of the PCs. For no reason over than the PCs have that strength level now and it's "un-fun" for the PCs to actually be able to use the strength level you let them have, instead of taking actual effort to make changes if it's truly "un-fun" beyond slapping bonuses on all monsters.

I agree though, it is off topic.

[Pex]

In practice I have found not having a 20 will not hurt your character up to level 12. You can get by with a 16 to level 8, but an 18 from 4th level is strong. The feat has to be really worth it to you. That's really always going to be the case. The feat has to be worth it for you. I mean you, personally, not game statistics, not the opinion of anyone on the Forum. A feat might not be worth delaying an 18 from 16 but would be worth delaying a 20 from 18 depending on campaign circumstances.

For my paladin at 8th level, taking Resilient CO for the saving throw proficiency and to make a 15 to 16 was more important to me than making my 16 CH an 18. It has proven its worth. I needed the hit points and I can't fail a Concentration check of DC 10, DC 11 now at 9th level. CH to 18 can wait for 12th level. At that time I'll need it more than what any feat could give me for this character in this campaign.

The +1 is important. If the feat is just as important, don't feel guilty in taking it. You are not playing the game wrong not having a 20.

[strangebloke]

snip

Yeah, I know, they're both true.

Specifically for save DCs, if you can guess the weak save of a monster and punish it, a +1 can actually be pretty close to 'Just a 5% increase to outcome,' since as others in this thread have pointed out, enemies get basically no progression in their weak saves. Personally I believe in specializing in my main abilities despite the diminishing returns because goodness, having an enemy succeed on a save is not a good feeling.

[Tanarii]

The +1 is important. If the feat is just as important, don't feel guilty in taking it. You are not playing the game wrong not having a 20.
And vice versa of course. You're not playing the game wrong if you want a 20 at, say 8th level.

Felt that was important for me to say because I'm the one claiming game math doesn't ever require it to not fall behind. But that does not mean I'm saying the +1 doesn't have value, nor that it's badwrongfun to want your 20 in your primary asap.

[KorvinStarmast]

The +1 is important. If the feat is just as important, don't feel guilty in taking it. You are not playing the game wrong not having a 20. The whole post was good, but the summary really needs some QFT love. *golf clap*

You're not playing the game wrong if you want a 20 at, say 8th level.
If you are casting spells with saves, the boosts in DC make a difference over time.
If you are casting attack cantrips, the boosts to hit don't hurt.
The trade offs are part of the choices made when "what do I boost" decisions come up.
I think that's a good thing, but I can see where a "systems mastery" approach may not always be how that decision is made.

[Nidgit]

Are you playing the game wrong if your party Land Druid leaves their WIS at 14 at the first ASI and instead ups their CHA to 12 when you already have three charisma specialists in the party?

Asking out of personal experience/frustration.

[Cybren]

Are you playing the game wrong if your party Land Druid leaves their WIS at 14 at the first ASI and instead ups their CHA to 12 when you already have three charisma specialists in the party?

Asking out of personal experience/frustration.

Is your party losing every fight it gets in to?

[Nidgit]

Is your party losing every fight it gets in to?
Nope, we've been fine and the DM has been going kind of easy on us anyway. The player in question isn't frequently effective though.

[KorvinStarmast]

Nope, we've been fine and the DM has been going kind of easy on us anyway. The player in question isn't frequently effective though.

Is the player having fun?

[Cynthaer]

Is the player having fun?

I have no objection to working this out question by question, but we could generalize to:

Is their choice of stats causing any observable problem for the group whatsoever beyond being aesthetically displeasing for at least one player?

[Nidgit]

I have no objection to working this out question by question, but we could generalize to:

Is their choice of stats causing any observable problem for the group whatsoever beyond being aesthetically displeasing for at least one player?
It's a bit confounding to me. The player often kind of takes a backseat to others and hasn't really used their improved Charisma for anything. I'd imagine just being generally more effective by improving Wisdom might improve their experience.

They seem to be having fun, I just worry they could be having a better time.

[DivisibleByZero]

Are you playing the game wrong if your party Land Druid leaves their WIS at 14 at the first ASI and instead ups their CHA to 12 when you already have three charisma specialists in the party?

Asking out of personal experience/frustration.


It's a bit confounding to me. The player often kind of takes a backseat to others and hasn't really used their improved Charisma for anything. I'd imagine just being generally more effective by improving Wisdom might improve their experience.

They seem to be having fun, I just worry they could be having a better time.

You said it yourself.
You're asking out of personal frustration.
It isn't affecting the group in a negative way. The player in question seems to be having fun. So what is the problem?
The problem is that he doesn't build his character the way that you would have. It's a personal issue you have. Nothing more.

[mephnick]

He could feel left out of the social stuff with 3 CHA casters dominating every conversation and took the stat bump to feel he might attempt to, or be allowed to, contribute more. Hard to say.

[Pex]

And vice versa of course. You're not playing the game wrong if you want a 20 at, say 8th level.

Felt that was important for me to say because I'm the one claiming game math doesn't ever require it to not fall behind. But that does not mean I'm saying the +1 doesn't have value, nor that it's badwrongfun to want your 20 in your primary asap.

That's true too.

It would never do for me to criticize someone wanting to have a high ability score. :smallyuk:

Either is the right choice. Neither is the wrong choice. Nothing is a must choose.


He could feel left out of the social stuff with 3 CHA casters dominating every conversation and took the stat bump to feel he might attempt to, or be allowed to, contribute more. Hard to say.

Not saying this is what's happening in the group in question, but it is really annoying to me when players inquire who among them has the highest modifier to a necessary roll and have that character do the Thing that requires the roll. It's a game style, not edition, issue. I've experienced it in 3E/Pathfinder as well. Worse is when the DM encourages it by doing the initial inquiry on who has the highest modifier. THAT is "rollplaying", and it drives me up the wall. The numbers matter, yes, but they don't have to be the best. Anyone can try to do the Thing.

[Deathtongue]

If the PCs have a way to defeat X easily, you don't counter with Y as a DM just because they now have X.
Personally? I'd do nothing. If they are fighting CR 6 enemies and they have 20+ in a stat plus items, then yes, I expect them to steamroll through them at level 19. There's a reason why you're supposed to have on average 8 encounters a day if you want to fully use up a PCs resources.Most DMs, including the actual official gamebooks and convention material, don't adhere to the 8 encounters per day guidelines. They rarely do even 4 encounters per day.

Me? I'd rather just have fewer, more challenging encounters than redo the monster math.

[mephnick]

Not saying this is what's happening in the group in question, but it is really annoying to me when players inquire who among them has the highest modifier to a necessary roll and have that character do the Thing that requires the roll. It's a game style, not edition, issue. I've experienced it in 3E/Pathfinder as well. Worse is when the DM encourages it by doing the initial inquiry on who has the highest modifier. THAT is "rollplaying", and it drives me up the wall. The numbers matter, yes, but they don't have to be the best. Anyone can try to do the Thing.

Agreed, it's a huge peeve of mine. As a DM I constantly have to force players to share the social spotlight, having NPCs directly ignore the face characters sometimes to let a shy player get a word in, and as a player I've been completely left out of social situations because the party won't let my 8 CHA character talk to anyone.

[ad_hoc]

Most DMs, including the actual official gamebooks and convention material, don't adhere to the 8 encounters per day guidelines. They rarely do even 4 encounters per day.

Me? I'd rather just have fewer, more challenging encounters than redo the monster math.

I play almost exclusively WotC 5e adventures and I have found that they are very much structured around 6-8 medium encounters (or fewer harder encounters) per long rest.

I have run HotDQ, OotA, CoS, and 1 adventure from TftYP.

With the exception of random encounter overland travel in OotA and Cos, they all follow these guidelines in their actual chapters. I can't think of any that have fewer than 4 (they may exist but they're probably minor chapters that I'm forgetting).

The players at my table learned quickly that spending all of their long rest abilities in the first 2 encounters was not going to work out well for them.

This is beside the point anyway. You don't need to have 8 encounters every long rest. Have 6-8 medium encounters one time, and another have 3-4 with hard and deadly challenges. Some times you could even have 4-6 medium encounters ~ the players don't know that it will be a short day so the tension will still be there.

[Deathtongue]

I play almost exclusively WotC 5e adventures and I have found that they are very much structured around 6-8 medium encounters (or fewer harder encounters) per long rest.I haven't played most of those adventures you listed, but I've played through SKT, Dead in Thay/Against the Giants, and a large portion of Tomb of Annihilation and they are very much not like that. I mean, you can definitely and persistently see instances where they'd LIKE for you to play that way in all of those adventures, especially in later parts, but there's no enforcement mechanism other than (spoiler) and the usual Continue Your Mission Dammit time limits. And it's just as well; I grow weary of playing Twenty Questions with the DM to determine if we got our long rest or 'surprise! Ninjas in the night'. Even in Dead In Thay, which has an explicit anti-rest mechanism, you weren't punished too harshly for taking frequent long rests unless you were deliberately wasting time.