"Main Stat" -- How Important is Getting That Main Ability Score as High as Possible?

[Max_Killjoy]

How important is it to get that "primary" Ability Score as high as possible as soon as possible?

Is there a huge drawback in having a 14 instead of a 16, or a 16 instead of an 18?

Are "rounded" characters viable, or are they "doomed" to be behind the curve?

[Frandopolis]

I would say it makes a pretty significant different but rounded characters can be made to be functional for sure.

[Astofel]

Thanks to bounded accuracy, it's not super important. Even if you're a spellcaster, the game doesn't 'expect' you to have a 20 in your main stat until about 12th level. IME, a 14/15 is fine for levels 1-4, and 16/17 is fine until 8th. Monks and paladins, two of the most MAD classes in 5e, do just fine in normal play, even if they choose to forgo an ASI to get a feat. The main benefit of having a high stat is that it means you're more free to take interesting feats.

[Unoriginal]

How important is it to get that "primary" Ability Score as high as possible as soon as possible?

Is there a huge drawback in having a 14 instead of a 16, or a 16 instead of an 18?

Are "rounded" characters viable, or are they "doomed" to be behind the curve?

It's not a huge drawback to have a 14-15 instead of a 16.

Depends what you ,mean by "rounded". Trying to get a jack-of-all-stats will certainly get you a master-of-none, but otherwise...

[MilkmanDanimal]

There will be a bit of a drop-off in pure combat effectiveness, but, if you're in a campaign that focuses on exploration and social aspects, having a character pretty good at everything will have lots of advantages. Even from a combat perspective, there are lots of buffing and utility spells that don't require any kind of stat-based roll.

One of the pluses of 5e is you don't need to go that full optimization route in order to still be effective. Sure, that first level fighter with a 14 STR has one less of a chance to hit than the 16 STR one, but it's not that big of a difference.

[Pex]

Someone else can give the mathematical proof for a particular viewpoint. I go by what I see happening. Your main ability score matters. By 8th level you need the 18. I know from experience only having a 16 before 8th level even for a spellcaster does not hurt. You may notice the difference once or twice, but overall you can get by. You will hit your enemy or he fails the saving throw often enough you won't miss the 18. What you get instead should be really important to you for the tradeoff, but you don't suffer for it.

At 8th level, it matters a great deal. Not all, but many ACs are becoming 20+. Bad guy saving throw bonuses are increasing. What's driving the increase is not only the monster ability score statistics but also their proficiency bonus. Your proficiency is also increasing, but if you don't increase your main score you're only increasing your math by +1s while the bad guys are increasing by +2s. When you're +2 what you were they're +4. When you're +3 they're +6. You need the 18 to keep up. Fortunately you don't absolutely need to get to 20 soon after. By 8th level you can consistently get buffs, a +# and/or Advantage through various means by yourself, from a party member, or both. My Paladin is 13th level without a 20, and he's doing fine. He has 18 in ST and CH. I suspect he'll need 20s at higher levels. I'm leaning CH first for the saving throws.

I see it in play. Players who do not emphasize their prime stat keep missing or bad guys make their saves. Obviously not every dice roll and they can succeed, but failure happens to them a significant number of times more than those who do keep up their prime. I keep having to bite my tongue when they make build choices I never would. They don't have to optimize like I do, but playing a War cleric with only a 10 ST as someone has done in a game I'm in? C'mon!

[PhoenixPhyre]

Pex, very few monster ACs ever hit 20. At least until you're talking CR 20+.

Generally, the system math assumes the following:
+2 or +3 in tier 1.
+3 or +4 in tier 2
+3, +4, or +5 in tier 3.
+4 or +5 in tier 4.

As usual, if the DM is running a steady diet of nothing but CR = level + 2 solo fights, you need a higher bonus. But that's a DM issue, not a system one.

[Unoriginal]

At 8th level, it matters a great deal. Not all, but many ACs are becoming 20+. Bad guy saving throw bonuses are increasing. What's driving the increase is not only the monster ability score statistics but also their proficiency bonus. Your proficiency is also increasing, but if you don't increase your main score you're only increasing your math by +1s while the bad guys are increasing by +2s. When you're +2 what you were they're +4. When you're +3 they're +6.

Uhm, do you have any example of bad guys showing up at lvl 8 or more that illustrate those tendencies, for you?

[SkipSandwich]

The first +3 points of ability modifier make up a larger proportion of your final modifier than the last +2 and thus have the most noticeable impact.

A +2 modifier at 1st-4th level is +100% of your proficiency bonus, +66.66% at 5th-8th, +50% at 9th-12th, +40% at 13th-16th and +33.33% at 17th+
A +3 modifier at 1st-4th level is +150% of your proficiency bonus, +100% at 5th-8th, +75% at 9th-12th, +60% at 13th-16th and +50% at 17th+
A +4 modifier is +133.33% of your proficiency bonus at 5th-8th, +100% at 9th-12th, +80% at 13th-16th and +66.66% at 17th+
A +5 modifier is +125% of your proficiency bonus at 9th-12th, +100% at 13th-16th and +83.33% at 17th+

I would say then a good rule-of-thumb is to to never let your ability modifier drop below 66.66% of your proficiency bonus, which means you should aim to hit +3 by no later than 8th level, and +4 no later than 12th level.

A good plan then is to either start with a +3 or aim to reach it using your 4th level ASI, then you have leeway to take a feat at 8th if you want and not go for the +4 til your 12th level ASI.

[Max_Killjoy]

Pex, very few monster ACs ever hit 20. At least until you're talking CR 20+.

Generally, the system math assumes the following:
+2 or +3 in tier 1.
+3 or +4 in tier 2
+3, +4, or +5 in tier 3.
+4 or +5 in tier 4.

As usual, if the DM is running a steady diet of nothing but CR = level + 2 solo fights, you need a higher bonus. But that's a DM issue, not a system one.

Is that just the pure Ability bonus?

If so, a character with a 14 "main stat" at level 6 is falling behind, as an example.

[Tanarii]

The system math assumes a +3 up to level ten, and a +4 after level 10. That's assuming you use the logical comparison of level vs CR-3.

So basically you're a little behind if you start at 15 and don't increase at level 4, and a lot ahead if you rush to a 20.

[Sigreid]

Personally I think maxing your main is more important for casters than for non casters because your spending a resource for an effect that can be neutralized by a save. So the higher your spell strength the less likely you are to just flat waste a limited resource.

[Pex]

Pex, very few monster ACs ever hit 20. At least until you're talking CR 20+.

Generally, the system math assumes the following:
+2 or +3 in tier 1.
+3 or +4 in tier 2
+3, +4, or +5 in tier 3.
+4 or +5 in tier 4.

As usual, if the DM is running a steady diet of nothing but CR = level + 2 solo fights, you need a higher bonus. But that's a DM issue, not a system one.

It's possible the DMs I've played with overcompensated on AC, but it's a catch-22. If the DM is running CR + 2 you need every +1 you can get. Because you're getting every +1 you can get the DM feels the need to run CR + 2. It's just a matter of which came first - the players getting +1s or the DM running CR + 2. Not all my DMs went to AC 20, but I can say most monsters have had AC at least 18 by the time 8th level happens, the exception being monsters that are a bag of holding hit points. It's part of why there wasn't a need to get a 20 in an ability, but you needed the 18. Those with 15s and 16s in their score were missing too much.

Those with saving throw abilities just failed if they didn't have an 18. Here it was due to the players being new the game or even new to RPGs. They didn't target monster low ability score saves. They didn't know what they were even if they wanted to. Even if you do know you can't always target the poor save and shouldn't have to. If you have an 18 or 20 in your main stat you can target a monster's strong or medium save and have a good chance of succeeding, not counting BBEG monsters that have Legendary stuff. Those who knew the game did not semi-dump their main ability score.

[Provo]

I would say that having your main stat a little low tends to feel more impactful than it really is... that being said D&D campaigns exist mostly in your imagination, so feeling is pretty important.

If you can get past the feeling that your character is subpar whenever you miss a roll (or someone else makes a save), then missing a point in your main stat will not make a huge impact.

[ad_hoc]

It's possible the DMs I've played with overcompensated on AC, but it's a catch-22. If the DM is running CR + 2 you need every +1 you can get. Because you're getting every +1 you can get the DM feels the need to run CR + 2. It's just a matter of which came first - the players getting +1s or the DM running CR + 2. Not all my DMs went to AC 20, but I can say most monsters have had AC at least 18 by the time 8th level happens, the exception being monsters that are a bag of holding hit points. It's part of why there wasn't a need to get a 20 in an ability, but you needed the 18. Those with 15s and 16s in their score were missing too much.

Those with saving throw abilities just failed if they didn't have an 18. Here it was due to the players being new the game or even new to RPGs. They didn't target monster low ability score saves. They didn't know what they were even if they wanted to. Even if you do know you can't always target the poor save and shouldn't have to. If you have an 18 or 20 in your main stat you can target a monster's strong or medium save and have a good chance of succeeding, not counting BBEG monsters that have Legendary stuff. Those who knew the game did not semi-dump their main ability score.

Average AC at level 8 will be around 16.

The majority of enemies will have an AC of 13-15 as the majority of enemy creatures will be lower CR. The tougher ones could get up to 18 or so.

Obviously there are outliers at most CRs.

On the topic of solo monsters: They either get obliterated or they TPK the party. They're fun and fine as part of a balanced and full adventuring day. They need to be a much higher CR than party level to be a threat and then the risk of TPK is high.

[Max_Killjoy]

So, a multiclass character with 5+ total levels, but no ASI from any class yet, and trying to be at least competent in multiple Abilities, is starting to fall behind unless they really sacrifice somewhere to have the multiple "main stats" to 16 at that point.

[Tanarii]

So, a multiclass character with 5+ total levels, but no ASI from any class yet, and trying to be at least competent in multiple Abilities, is starting to fall behind unless they really sacrifice somewhere to have the multiple "main stats" to 16 at that point.
No. Falling behind by 1 pt modifier is not a cardinal sin that you must sacrifice to correct.

[Pex]

So, a multiclass character with 5+ total levels, but no ASI from any class yet, and trying to be at least competent in multiple Abilities, is starting to fall behind unless they really sacrifice somewhere to have the multiple "main stats" to 16 at that point.

Maybe. Class ability synergy could help, but don't rely on class ability saving throw attacks too much. If you can get Advantage on attack rolls often enough that will compensate a little, such as a Rogue using bonus action Hide or Barbarian using Reckless Attack.

A player who really likes being support I think can do fine without emphasizing a prime score. Spells that buff others or alter terrain don't need saving throws. Class abilities that help others do better don't need to worry about saving throws either. In some combats when the party is attacking the bad guys you can be doing something else that needs doing, like freeing the captives, getting the McGuffin, or solving the puzzle. Other times when you have nothing else to do in a combat round you might as well attack, by attack roll or saving throw and hope raw luck is with you. If it works, great. If it doesn't, it's not something you or the party were depending on so you're not worse off.

[Kurald Galain]

No. Falling behind by 1 pt modifier is not a cardinal sin that you must sacrifice to correct.

Indeed. Having a 5% less chance of success, even on your main ability score, is not a big deal. It's not even noticeable during normal gameplay. Don't worry about it.

[Chronos]

Having a main stat that's two lower than it "should" be means that, 5% of the time, you'll fail at something that you "should" have succeeded at. If we say that a combat lasts about five rounds, and you're attacking twice a round, then it's about one extra miss every two fights. If you're using spells that target four creatures a round, then it's about one extra successful save per fight. It might also change the effectiveness of your successes, if you have +ability modifier to damage (like all weapon-users and a few spellcasters do). Whatever defenses your mainstat provides (potentially saves for any stat, though some are more common or important than others, plus AC for Dex-users) will similarly mean that, 5% of the time, your enemy succeeds at something they "should" have failed at. Finally, some abilities have a number of uses equal to your stat mod, so you'll get one fewer use per rest of those.

[Unoriginal]

Basically, don't worry about optimization guides calling a race/class combo worthless because you don't get 16 in the primary stat at lvl 1.

[Zaharra]

It's not that big of a deal if the table you're playing at isn't just a combat simulator. I play a fighter/rogue with a 16 dex at lv 9, I have the actor feat and a 18 charisma because there character is all about social infiltration and assassination. When we fight I do okay, I have the archery fighting style which gets me the same to hit as if I had 20 dex and I do 2 less damage per turn in exchange for getting to play my weird concept.

[Max_Killjoy]

Thanks all -- it's nice to get some perspective to counter some of the "you should play a gnome instead of a halfling for this class" posts. :smallsmile:

[Provo]

Thanks all -- it's nice to get some perspective to counter some of the "you should play a gnome instead of a halfling for this class" posts. :smallsmile:

Agreed, and one further bit of support:

As a DM, it seems to me that my players started having a lot more fun when they stopped worrying too much about optimization. This campaign they let themselves make sub-optimal choices to build the character they want. Not only is this the most fun campaign we have had, but they do not feel any weaker than their previous characters (in fact they are shutting down encounters more effectively, as they are being more creative with their solutions)

Note: they aren’t specifically making weak characters (like a str 8 Barbarian), rather they are allowing themselves to sacrifice things like a stat point, choosing some rarely used spells/feats.

[CTurbo]

I think I value the main stat more than most. Stating with a 14 is not going to kill you, but I definitely consider it low and better have some great rp reasons for doing so. 99% of the time I'm going to start with a 16 and I'd probably say that 75% of the time I'm going to bump it to 18 before taking a feat. I do tend to use vhuman for builds that demand a feat in order to work.

[Willie the Duck]

How important is it to get that "primary" Ability Score as high as possible as soon as possible?

Is there a huge drawback in having a 14 instead of a 16, or a 16 instead of an 18?

Are "rounded" characters viable, or are they "doomed" to be behind the curve?

There are three questions there, and the answer to each is pretty much, "it depends."

How important is very much class/archetype/build/role-dependent. A melee rogue is going to want to get that Dex (informing attack, AC, initiative, skills, and an important save) up there pretty quickly, while a ranged rogue might have other priorities. A strength-based fighter might want to pick up some or all of the GWM/PAM/Sentinel line, plus resilient and maybe Magic Initiate/Spell Sniper to grab a ranged javelin alternative, all of them before altering their starting strength (I did that. I played a Vuman fighter halberdier up to level 12, and got GWM, PAM, Sentinel, Resilient:Wis, and Magic Initiate: Guidance, Toll the Dead, Bless, and never rose their Str over 16).

The huge drawback of X instead of X+2? Well again it will depends. Overall, no. A single +1 to rolls (and spell DCs), even if you make some build where you can use one stat for almost everything, will not replace good decision making (a greater factor in character success than anything else).

As to are rounded characters viable, or doomed to be behind the curve, it's actually both. They are viable, but they will be behind the curve. And mind you, I am the poster child for wishing that it were not the case. I would love for a non-variant human in point buy who ended up with a character starting with an 11 and five 14s as stats was a great idea. But it isn't the case. That said, such a character is imminently playable, because, unlike other games/editions, the distance between those behind the curve and those ahead of it is not earth-shattering. You can make decisions 'for flavor.' You can make rounded characters. It works. Doesn't stop them from being mechanically behind.

[Wildarm]

It mostly comes down to the fact that for SAD classes there is almost never a better choice than bumping your primary stat before considering feats. There are a few exceptions for certain builds but in the end getting +1 to attack, damage, spell DCs, saves, your best skills, and potentially your AC is just too good to pass up. You probably won't feel like you're under performing compared to others if you haven't maxed your stat but statistically you will be.

[KorvinStarmast]

My experience is that casters need it more than others. Boosting the spell save DC, particularly when you are casting control spells like web, benefits the party far more when the enemy fails the save than when they don't. Likewise with Turn Undead.

Willie's point on GWM/PAM/Sentinel is a good one. (Nice build there with the Bless folded in ..)

Monks: Because Monks get into fighting quite a bit, but aren't really tanky, getting both Wis and Dex up soon can make a difference, but I tend to boost Wis first since those control effects from flurry of blows are based on the spell save DC from Wis. See above for casters.

[JAL_1138]

Also, if you end up at level 20 with an 18 in your main stat, it’s still fine. You never need to get there at all to be fine, so if you want to take an extra feat somewhere, or boost some other stat, go for it. It does have some impact, yes, but as plenty of prior posters who can do math better than me have pointed out, the game’s math is loose enough to accommodate it.

I don’t have the same kind of math to back this up that they do, but in my experience:

14 in Tier 1 is fine.
16 in Tier 2 and Tier 3 is also fine, but 16 at Tier 3 is slightly more noticeable, unless you have something to offset it like a magic weapon, or an accuracy-boosting spell or class feature. But it still works plenty decently enough, even with higher-op characters in the party too; it’s not going to be like you brought a stock Yugo to a drag race or something. Multiclass, take that third feat, or whatever you want to do; it won’t “ruin your character” or something.
18 in Tier 4 is fine. Only having a 16, you’d start to notice quite a bit more, but could probably still skate by all right.

[OverLordOcelot]

This depends a lot on how you play the character. A spellcaster who mostly uses summons, heals, walls, and buffs doesn't really notice a low casting stat, because they're not rolling a lot of to-hit's or forcing a lot of saves. Moon druids are a good example of a caster who isn't going to worry that their casting stat is low, while casters who focus on evocation or crowd control will feel it constantly. Physical attackers notice it a lot more, because instead of just missing 5% more often, they also do 1 less damage on each and every attack, which ends up being more like a 10-15% drop (SS/GWM reduce that percentage, but also notice the -1 to-hit more). A paladin often won't care that much, because their big attack trick is self-buffing and dropping a smite when they hit, while that crossbow expert relying on 3 shots per round really feels that each one is more likely to miss and that they go from 14 to 17 average damage on a full round of hits. A typical warlock will really notice a low casting stat, because they have so few slots they really want each to count, and because their casting stat works like a physical attacker's does on their Eldritch Blast.

Also, being behind by 1 to hit is just a 5% swing, it's often not all that noticeable. The problem people run into is that if you're not focusing on a primary stat, you're not just one plus behind everyone else, you sort of just leave it, then at 10th level you've got a +2 or +3 when everyone else is sporting a solid +5, which is hard not to notice.

[ad_hoc]

If we say that a combat lasts about five rounds, and you're attacking twice a round, then it's about one extra miss every two fights.

FWIW monsters are designed assuming a 3 round combat.

[Unoriginal]

FWIW monsters are designed assuming a 3 round combat.

More specifically, a CR X solo monster is expected/estimated to be able to last 3 rounds against a lvl X group of 4. Not quite the same thing.

[MoiMagnus]

How important is it to get that "primary" Ability Score as high as possible as soon as possible?

Is there a huge drawback in having a 14 instead of a 16, or a 16 instead of an 18?

Are "rounded" characters viable, or are they "doomed" to be behind the curve?

They will be behind the curve mathematically, but as other discussed, not that much. But there is two quite important factors:
1) How "hardcore" is your DM. If you DM play toward casual play, characters with stats spread (rather than concentrated on the primary Ability Score) will be useful "more often" (because tests will be reachable by non-specialized characters), while if you have an hardcore DM expecting you to munchkin, characters with stats spread will be useful "less often" (because most test will be geared towards specialized characters).
2) How redundant you are with other PCs. It is quite frustrating to have a fellow PC which look like "you in better". And there is nothing more frustrating than having for each of your specialities one other PC better than you at it.

[Man_Over_Game]

Rounded characters do have one major benefit, which is that multiclassing becomes a lot more accessible. The catch is with multiclassing is that you always need to pay attention to what you're gaining/losing as part of that multiclass. Rogues/Monks/Fighters/Barbarians/Rangers can all multiclass with one another pretty dang well, because they all use the universal action: Attack. Since they all attack, and you can activate multiple class abilities to improve that attack, it ends up being a synergistic relationship. As long as you don't have multiple Extra Attack features, it's really hard to go wrong just mixing up these classes into whatever seems right, and since most classes are frontloaded (they reward their biggest features in the first few levels), it's pretty wise to do so sometimes.

With casters or wearers of heavy armor, it's a little bit different.

Options that include heavy armor often have that proficiency be an expensive part of the class, which is why Paladins and Fighters don't gain much at level 1, so it's generally not wise to multiclass Heavy Armor classes together, in order to avoid a redundant level.

Casters end up not being able to cast higher level spells, which can slow down their effectiveness. Casting Chromatic Orb 3 more times a day might not be worth losing out on having access to Fireball or other spells. Generally, you only want to multiclass casters when there's a valid synergy to do so.

A few examples:
Leveling into Hexblade for Shield, medium armor, cursing a target for enhanced single target damage.
Leveling into Sorcerer for Shield, Absorb Elements, or Metamagic
Leveling into Cleric for armor proficiencies that you may be lacking.

Generally, you want to be able to cast while earning new benefits that either are present while you cast (like armor or Metamagic), or provide something that your casting cannot solve (like Wild Shape, in the Druid's case). That way, while your friend is casting Fireball, you're casting Flaming Sphere with +2 more AC. Not *always* better, but definitely valid.

Follow these guidelines, and even a rounded character can do perfectly fine without maxed out stats.

[opaopajr]

The "pyramid of tier optimization" in 5e is vastly more "broad at its base" than its WotC peers, and thus its "foundation" doesn't have to rest so "deep below the surface." :smallwink:

Meaning: the difference between character functionality is nowhere near as hyper-specialized, so no vast gaps between overperforming & underperforming PC builds. More Suburban Shopping Mall than Skyscraper. 5e PCs are more generalists, (thank you bounded accuracy!,) and thus it is hard to make a hopeless character. :smallcool:

[PeteNutButter]

I’ve seen a lot of people saying things like it’s only 5% but it’s significantly more of a boost to DPR.

Let’s take a quick simple example of a level 1 ranger using a longbow. Against an AC 14 enemy the Ranger with a 14 dex has a DPR of 3.8. The ranger with the 16 dex has a DPR against the same foe of 4.725. That’s about a 20% difference in DPR.

The higher the enemy AC, the greater the gap as the hits represent a smaller portion of the d20s probabilities, making that one more hit a bigger increase. Against an animated armor for instance (AC 18) the gap is about 22.5%.

If you want to optimize, it’s pretty big, but not crippling. Don’t let it stop you from playing a cool race.

[sithlordnergal]

It really depends on it you are a spellcaster or not. If you're not a spellcaster, then 16 to 18 is all you really need to hit someone, your proficiency bonus will take care of the rest. That said, after Tier 2 you will feel a 16 pretty hard.

Spellcasters have it a bit rougher due to Spell Saves, but 16 will get you through Tier 1, and an18 in your casting stats will get you all the way to level 16. That said, you need that 18 in Tier 2, you'll feel it big time if you don't.

I know this stuff from playing casters, both full and half casters, from level 1 to level 19 in AL. I once tried out a Half-Orc Cleric, and as soon as I reached Tier 2, I found my spells that gave targets saving throws were essentially useless because my Save DC was too low with a 16 Wisdom

[PhoenixPhyre]

I’ve seen a lot of people saying things like it’s only 5% but it’s significantly more of a boost to DPR.

Let’s take a quick simple example of a level 1 ranger using a longbow. Against an AC 14 enemy the Ranger with a 14 dex has a DPR of 3.8. The ranger with the 16 dex has a DPR against the same foe of 4.725. That’s about a 20% difference in DPR.

The higher the enemy AC, the greater the gap as the hits represent a smaller portion of the d20s probabilities, making that one more hit a bigger increase. Against an animated armor for instance (AC 18) the gap is about 22.5%.

If you want to optimize, it’s pretty big, but not crippling. Don’t let it stop you from playing a cool race.

But here's the thing about DPR. It just flat out doesn't matter, and if it did, it would be the absolute difference, not the relative difference that would matter. Going from a DPR of 0.1 to 0.2 is a 100% difference, but it's still nothing. Going from 50 to 75 is only a 50% increase, but it's the difference between nuking a weak enemy and nuking a much stronger one.

And thinking you can get 2 or 3 digits of precision out of 3-8 data points (3-5 rounds, maybe a double attack) is a misuse of math.

[PeteNutButter]

But here's the thing about DPR. It just flat out doesn't matter, and if it did, it would be the absolute difference, not the relative difference that would matter. Going from a DPR of 0.1 to 0.2 is a 100% difference, but it's still nothing. Going from 50 to 75 is only a 50% increase, but it's the difference between nuking a weak enemy and nuking a much stronger one.

Relative difference certainly matters because that is what are choices are. Assuming point-buy, you have the choice between choosing a race that boosts your attack stat (dex in this case), or starting with a +2 dex mod. The +3 dex mod is roughly 15-25% more DPR. If everyone in the party does this it can mean a combat that would last 5 rounds is instead over in 4. 25 extra damage would be great, but there is no sense comparing what isn't an option.

This gap relative gap will tend to shrink as a character goes up in levels as a greater portion of their attack roll comes from proficiency/magic weapons, and a greater portion of their damage comes from things like magical weapons, SS, etc. Perhaps ironically, as the % difference decreases, the real difference will tend to increase.



And thinking you can get 2 or 3 digits of precision out of 3-8 data points (3-5 rounds, maybe a double attack) is a misuse of math.

What does that even mean? The number of data points in a closed problem has no bearing on the accuracy of its solution. I can be infinitely accurate with just two data points, such as 2 + 2 = 4.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00 etc.

If you are trying to say that in 5 rounds my character won't necessarily average their calculated DPR... no argument here. That's not enough of a sample space. Over the life of the character it'll probably get close.

The most optimized character in the game would be crap if he always rolled 1s. None of that changes the math.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Relative difference certainly matters because that is what are choices are. Assuming point-buy, you have the choice between choosing a race that boosts your attack stat (dex in this case), or starting with a +2 dex mod. The +3 dex mod is roughly 15-25% more DPR. If everyone in the party does this it can mean a combat that would last 5 rounds is instead over in 4. 25 extra damage would be great, but there is no sense comparing what isn't an option.

This gap relative gap will tend to shrink as a character goes up in levels as a greater portion of their attack roll comes from proficiency/magic weapons, and a greater portion of their damage comes from things like magical weapons, SS, etc. Perhaps ironically, as the % difference decreases, the real difference will tend to increase.


% difference in DPR doesn't matter. For anything. Because it's swamped by the noise. You know what tanks your DPR even more? Being paralyzed because you dropped WIS and ate that hold person. Or being out of range for one turn. Over 3-4 rounds, you've got a couple chances to hit, and the d20 is doing most of the lifting there.



What does that even mean? The number of data points in a closed problem has no bearing on the accuracy of its solution. I can be infinitely accurate with just two data points, such as 2 + 2 = 4.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00 etc.

If you are trying to say that in 5 rounds my character won't necessarily average their calculated DPR... no argument here. That's not enough of a sample space. Over the life of the character it'll probably get close.

The most optimized character in the game would be crap if he always rolled 1s. None of that changes the math.

You're taking averages. That's what those d8 = 4.5 things are. And those assume that the law of large numbers holds. It doesn't in these cases. Not even over an entire adventuring career, because the underlying distributions aren't the same (due to different ACs, etc). You're not whaling on a testing dummy for thousands of hits--you've got a few dozen attacks against any particular AC. And the noise in the system swamps everything else. You might be able to see a large difference. Maybe. If you're not my friend who always rolls crappy. Or the unlucky sod who gets whacked the first round or ends up way out of position.

This isn't 3.5, where the differences were orders of magnitude, both in relative and in absolute terms. These are small difference in white-room scenarios. IE they're totally irrelevant to play.

Sure, don't go building a character with a 10 in his main stat and wonder why it doesn't work well. But a +2 at level 1, and a +4 at level 20 just aren't that bad. They're well below the noise floor of the game.

[GlenSmash!]

I will almost always take a fun or defining feat before maxing main stat.

It helps that GWM will increase my damage more than moving my strength from 16-18 at level 4.

[ad_hoc]

You're taking averages. That's what those d8 = 4.5 things are. And those assume that the law of large numbers holds. It doesn't in these cases. Not even over an entire adventuring career, because the underlying distributions aren't the same (due to different ACs, etc). You're not whaling on a testing dummy for thousands of hits--you've got a few dozen attacks against any particular AC. And the noise in the system swamps everything else. You might be able to see a large difference. Maybe. If you're not my friend who always rolls crappy. Or the unlucky sod who gets whacked the first round or ends up way out of position.

This is often overlooked.

Even an online poker player who played hundreds of thousands of hands still had a fairly wide expected margin of return vs skill.

People also don't factor in other things like damage lost from overkill and % of damage from the standpoint of the entire party. 6 to 8 damage looks like a lot, it's a 33% increase, but it is actually only an increase of 32 to 34 (or whatever) as a total amount of damage. This is partly why abilities like Agonizing Blast are overvalued. Caster's true strength are their spells, not their cantrips.

[Man_Over_Game]

This is often overlooked.

Even an online poker player who played hundreds of thousands of hands still had a fairly wide expected margin of return vs skill.

People also don't factor in other things like damage lost from overkill and % of damage from the standpoint of the entire party. 6 to 8 damage looks like a lot, it's a 33% increase, but it is actually only an increase of 32 to 34 (or whatever) as a total amount of damage. This is partly why abilities like Agonizing Blast are overvalued. Caster's true strength are their spells, not their cantrips.

Well, truth be told, people don't think that Agonizing Blast is too good as a standalone, but the fact that it increases the damage of each shot, and Eldritch Blast also synergizes well with Quicken Spell, it can get a bit out of hand.

EB deals 5.5 average damage, Agonizing Blast adds about +3 damage, Quicken Spell effectively doubles these values, and the values get doubled again at level 5.

Combined, Agonizing Blast only adds +3 damage per bolt (55% increase), but that gets translated into +12 damage per turn compared to someone who doesn't have Agonizing Blast with the same build.

As for a resources spent, it cost the equivalent of converting a level 1 spell slot. The highest ranged, single target damage level 1 spell (Chromatic Orb) deals 13.5 damage that has half the range with worse damage types.

Put in another way, Agonizing Blast, when combined with Quickened Spell, is better than a Bonus Action Chromatic Orb. That's better than a level 2 spell slot spent for a melee Divine Smite (which deals 13.5 radiant damage).

[PeteNutButter]

You're taking averages. That's what those d8 = 4.5 things are. And those assume that the law of large numbers holds. It doesn't in these cases. Not even over an entire adventuring career, because the underlying distributions aren't the same (due to different ACs, etc). You're not whaling on a testing dummy for thousands of hits--you've got a few dozen attacks against any particular AC. And the noise in the system swamps everything else. You might be able to see a large difference. Maybe. If you're not my friend who always rolls crappy. Or the unlucky sod who gets whacked the first round or ends up way out of position.

This isn't 3.5, where the differences were orders of magnitude, both in relative and in absolute terms. These are small difference in white-room scenarios. IE they're totally irrelevant to play.

Sure, don't go building a character with a 10 in his main stat and wonder why it doesn't work well. But a +2 at level 1, and a +4 at level 20 just aren't that bad. They're well below the noise floor of the game.

I did the simple math to demonstrate a simple point. 15-25% is a number people can actually grasp. 15-25% is not the 1-1000% you'd see in 3.5e, but it's still a number, a number that is more accurate than the 5% that has been bandied about. I'm not saying ~20% is HUGE. I'm just saying its about 20%. If you think that's not enough to discourage you from using a sub-optimal race, that's fine by me. I've done it too.

It might even be small enough that it's lost in actual game play. The sub-optimal character may very well outperform the optimized one. (I know, I have legendary bad rolls. It's why I became an optimizer.) But once you start looking at it at that META of a level, it kinda makes the entire process of theorycrafting pointless... which again is a valid point of view.

I for one can certainly attest from experience optimizing works. Maximizing the stat is just one part of the process. It might not be the point buy, or the proper MC level spread, or the spell choice, or the tactics, etc. But once you put all those things together, you get a character [and player] that will outperform sub-optimal characters more often than not. Even my best characters have bad sessions though, whether it's not preparing the right spell, rolling like crap, or the adventure countering my best tactics.

*To sum up, the point of the simple math from an optimizer's standpoint is to look at various choices. If I'm comparing an elf ranger to a lizardfolk ranger, I can ask myself is it worth ~20% DPR to pick up scales for a better AC in the long run? Or compare it to a higher wisdom for better saves, etc. It is not necessarily the case that maxing that attack stat is always the optimized or right choice. For instance several feats are a DPR increase compared to raising a stat to an 18. It's just nice to have a clearer picture of what you're giving up (on average).

If anyone cares, I made a simple spreadsheet on this example character, simulating all combat rounds. Assuming 3 adventuring days with 4 encounters per day averaging 4 rounds per combat, this means the character can expect to have 48 combat rounds. The sheet randomizes the rolls to show how much the character would do on average with. I show both the % difference, and the real difference in a sum of how much more damage the +3 mod does over it's adventuring career (48 rounds).

Simply altering any blank cell to the right will cause it to recalculate, and thus reroll all the dice, simulating a new character.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Y9oEkjsTxH02HW1K0-76i4tnZWugnX26EFUDGwGenPw/edit?usp=sharing

You could also alter the AC, or I could even make it variable, but it should give a good picture of what you gain from having a higher stat.

[Max_Killjoy]

Didn't want to get into the specific character, but I want to head off the thread becoming a a back-and-forth theorycrafting exercise, so...

Without posting all the details, who considers this character "falling behind", and who does not?

Rogue (Thief) 3, Wizard (War Mage 2), UA revised Ranger (https://media.wizards.com/2016/dnd/downloads/UA_RevisedRanger.pdf) 1. 14 INT and 14 DEX (13 STR, 14 CON, 13 WIS, 10 CHA, Half Elf).


(Using point buy for this because it's just me working on something, I can do into depth on all the "stuff" if that makes a difference.)

[PhoenixPhyre]

Didn't want to get into the specific character, but I want to head off the thread becoming a a back-and-forth theorycrafting exercise, so...

Without posting all the details, who considers this character "falling behind", and who does not?

Rogue (Thief) 3, Wizard (War Mage 2), UA revised Ranger (https://media.wizards.com/2016/dnd/downloads/UA_RevisedRanger.pdf) 1. 14 INT and 14 DEX (13 STR, 14 CON, 13 WIS, 10 CHA, Half Elf).


(Using point buy for this because it's just me working on something, I can do into depth on all the "stuff" if that makes a difference.)

I'd consider it in danger of falling behind, depending on what the next few levels are. Unless you pick a direction (either rogue, wizard, or ranger) and stick with it you will fall behind. Mainly because you're spreading yourself very very thin there--DEX, INT, and WIS unless you don't care about ranger casting at all.

But at level 6? Not really. A bit behind the "curve", but not so much as you'd really notice or care unless you're in a combat-monster group. In my, more "narrative-focused" groups, you'd fit right in. I think I have a Fighter 8 who only has maybe? a 16 STR. And that only at the last ASI. He took Lucky and some other feat in the middle.

[Mitsu]

I say that for melee it's super important. Hence why you see in majority of optimized melee builds Variant Human, because he can take that crucial talent either on 1st level (like PAM) or already pump that main stat to 20 at level 4 so at level 8 he can take a crucial talent (typical tactic for Devotion Paladins, +2 CHA 1st level, +2 CHA 4th level, GWM on 8th level to fully counter -5).

The +2 dmg and +2 accuracy actually is adding a lot on 8th and 12th level. Foe melee characters that highly depend on huge DPR or melee Nova (Fighters, especially PAM + GWM ones and Paladins, especially Vengeance) get huge boost from extra +2 Accuracy. +2 damage is less important on higher levels but it still adds up (4-5 attacks is extra 8-10 dmg).

For range character they can get away longer without pumping because of Archery style.

Caster don't really need that. At least not that much. CC spells while having save throw, have a variety of them. It's important to use correct one (DEX save on Orc, STR save on casters etc. Also many damage spells are just- point, cast, dmg.

However I still think that unless you are building specific build like PAM, mounted Combatant, Shield Master etc. you should pump that stat to 20 as fast as possible. Variant Human Casters imo have no excuse- 20 at level 4 asap.

The earlier you do that- the more impact it has on your gameplay imo.

[ad_hoc]

Didn't want to get into the specific character, but I want to head off the thread becoming a a back-and-forth theorycrafting exercise, so...

Without posting all the details, who considers this character "falling behind", and who does not?

Rogue (Thief) 3, Wizard (War Mage 2), UA revised Ranger (https://media.wizards.com/2016/dnd/downloads/UA_RevisedRanger.pdf) 1. 14 INT and 14 DEX (13 STR, 14 CON, 13 WIS, 10 CHA, Half Elf).


(Using point buy for this because it's just me working on something, I can do into depth on all the "stuff" if that makes a difference.)

It's less the ability scores and more the levels.

Level 5 is huge. If you are 9th level and don't have 5 levels in a class then you're probably not going to have a good time.

[Max_Killjoy]

I'd consider it in danger of falling behind, depending on what the next few levels are. Unless you pick a direction (either rogue, wizard, or ranger) and stick with it you will fall behind. Mainly because you're spreading yourself very very thin there--DEX, INT, and WIS unless you don't care about ranger casting at all.

But at level 6? Not really. A bit behind the "curve", but not so much as you'd really notice or care unless you're in a combat-monster group. In my, more "narrative-focused" groups, you'd fit right in. I think I have a Fighter 8 who only has maybe? a 16 STR. And that only at the last ASI. He took Lucky and some other feat in the middle.


It's less the ability scores and more the levels.

Level 5 is huge. If you are 9th level and don't have 5 levels in a class then you're probably not going to have a good time.

The Rev Ranger dip is just for the first-level tricks (see link), the Skill slot, and the weapon/armor proficiencies -- at least for that character, no more levels would be planned.

The Wizard levels are for access to the War Magic 2nd-level tricks, and magic in general (Cantrips, Ritual casting, utility 1st-level spells, etc).

So the next two levels planned would be Rogue 4 and Rogue 5, and the ASI would probably have to be DEX at that point.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's less the ability scores and more the levels.

Level 5 is huge. If you are 9th level and don't have 5 levels in a class then you're probably not going to have a good time.

This I can agree with. My Warlock 2/Bard 5 was rather painful (but still fun!) for those two levels after the wizard had 3rd level spells.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The Rev Ranger dip is just for the first-level tricks (see link), the Skill slot, and the weapon/armor proficiencies -- at least for that character, no more levels would be planned.

The Wizard levels are for access to the War Magic 2nd-level tricks, and magic in general (Cantrips, Ritual casting, utility 1st-level spells, etc).

So the next two levels planned would be Rogue 4 and Rogue 5, and the ASI would probably have to be DEX at that point.

Then NBD in my opinion. Certainly not optimized (for combat, anyway), but you'll want to push some solid rogue levels for a while.

[mephnick]

It's not as important as people think, but it makes people feel better.

It's like those players that HAVE to use a rapier as a rogue because it's a 1d8 over 1d6. Man..if you can recognize that extra 1 damage on one attack against a 130hp enemy..you're a better man than me.

[LordEntrails]

IME, it doesn't matter at all. I have yet to see it impact the fun at my table.

[djreynolds]

I think most players will try to max out their main stat.
The question might be, as others have suggested, by when?
And it's tough to weigh.
I've seen many members say, hey don't take GWM until 8th and others might say as early as possible. The point is that most feats have 2 to 3 aspects. It's far easier, in early play to kill a goblin and get a BA attack then it is to clear out Slaad at 8th level, but landing the power attack portion may be easier or equal at least in difficulty.
My point is waiting on a feat, might devalue the need for it later on. And grabbing something like resilient wisdom early may be a waste.
It's all theoretical, and might be best viewed in game, with real examples.
For me, I took resilient wisdom actually at character level 12, because I had failed some saves, and after selecting it, only had need for it twice. Selecting it earlier may have saved me some pain. But not maxing out strength would've made some fights end a round or 2 later, maybe.
It really is tough to weigh

[Laserlight]

I think your strategy and tactics will be the primary factor. If you're a paladin who forgot to bring a ranged attack, or sorcerer who charged into melee and spent half the fight making death saves, or the archer who missed half the fights because he wouldn't stick with the party, then it doesn't matter what your stats are.

[opaopajr]

It's also an issue of Organized Play (Adventure League currently) habitually defaulting to the Combat Pillar at the expense of Exploration & Social Pillars. Due to the constraints of Play Time, Adventure Scope, "Sequential Narrative Flow," and Applicability Across Tables, you get a bias towards Combat Pillar, and in contextually dampened combat environments at that. So obviously such near-sightedness will focus on those combat fine details almost to exclusion -- it's a subjective bias trying to justify itself in "objective terms" of its tiny world view applied as Universal Truth, unaware of its inherent subjectivity.

[Tanarii]

They will be behind the curve mathematically, but as other discussed, not that much. But there is two quite important factors:
1) How "hardcore" is your DM. If you DM play toward casual play, characters with stats spread (rather than concentrated on the primary Ability Score) will be useful "more often" (because tests will be reachable by non-specialized characters), while if you have an hardcore DM expecting you to munchkin, characters with stats spread will be useful "less often" (because most test will be geared towards specialized characters).
2) How redundant you are with other PCs. It is quite frustrating to have a fellow PC which look like "you in better". And there is nothing more frustrating than having for each of your specialities one other PC better than you at it.3) How often does your DM spread checks around, either by requiring them from all PCs in the form of group checks or individual checks (all at once), or from individuals acting alone?

In other words, does your DM go with "One Check to Rule Them All" checks a lot, in which the highest modifier is rolling for the entire party, and others rarely need to use their lower modifier? That's especially common for Intelligence and Charisma checks, which is why they often become dump stats. Especially if you combine that DM-ing style with a heavy combat environment.

[OverLordOcelot]

It's also an issue of Organized Play (Adventure League currently) habitually defaulting to the Combat Pillar at the expense of Exploration & Social Pillars.

While there is a lot of combat in AL games, my experience in them is that there are a lot of call for non-combat abilities. One of the S8 (current) Tier 1 adventures is impossible to fully succeed at without a character who has a good arcana skill (barring DM intervention), for example. Traps and scouting are pretty common, as are puzzles (though puzzles are a player challenge not a character challenge). And a number of the 'run around waterdeep and find out what's happening' modules have a ton of social checks and social activities. I think that may be a deliberate change from older iterations of the environment.

[Bloodcloud]

It depends a bit on the character I'd say.

A (melee focused domain) cleric can do a lot even with a middling wis score. Say, maybe you invested a bit more in str and con. The extra con will help maintain concentration on the wis agnostic bless, while you hammer the enemy with your high strenght. Overall, very functionnal.

A monk with low dex, on the other hand, is screwed on his AC and attack, and has now way to leverage a 12 in str or int. He'll feel the pain quite acutely.

The wizard will similarly see many spell slot wasted, unless say he is a mountain dwarf abjurer, focusing on long duration concentration spell and using his high ac and con to keep em' going.

So, it can be pretty bad, but if it's a bit low because you actually leverage your other stats, you could be quite fine. Depends on the build.

[opaopajr]

While there is a lot of combat in AL games, my experience in them is that there are a lot of call for non-combat abilities. One of the S8 (current) Tier 1 adventures is impossible to fully succeed at without a character who has a good arcana skill (barring DM intervention), for example. Traps and scouting are pretty common, as are puzzles (though puzzles are a player challenge not a character challenge). And a number of the 'run around waterdeep and find out what's happening' modules have a ton of social checks and social activities. I think that may be a deliberate change from older iterations of the environment.

That required Arcana check is a good example of an Adventure Gate; the game expects a tax of X functions to be passable, no other way around. That highlights exactly the problem. Under more open conditions there should be more lateral solutions.

The presence of skill checks & activities do not intrinsically make those pillars fulfilled. It is more than a box on a list to check off. Similarly "Attacking" a Gordian Knot does not fulfill a combat pillar, even though it brings a solution and rolls off an attack by RAW.

You would need a breadth of viable solutions, and the time and setting-to-PC relationship continuity to develop them, to make these pillars as robust. The format actively fights against it, down to even the concept of "season." :smallsmile: But as long as you are having fun, keep having fun!

[jas61292]

I personally think that, far more important than whether or not your main stat is high is the "why" behind it. Obviously, having a high main stat because it boosts your main abilities is a perfectly good thing. But having a lower score may or may not be an issue depending on the why.

Having a lower score because you decided to be more will rounded and wanted decent saves and a focus on certain less conventional skills is typically fine. You may send up feeling more like a jack of all trades, master of none, but that is not a bad thing necessarily. It's just a different style.

On the other hand, if you have a lower main stat because you rolled stats and just have bad rolls, that will certainly effect you, as you are not gaining anything in a tradeoff. Similarly, if you drop your main score just to boost one that is not doing much for you (such as a ranger boosting Charisma, but not taking any charisma skills or features to use with it), that is going to hurt some.

Really though, it pays to look at the character as a whole. Main abilities might get much of the focus, but they are not all you can use. If you are getting something else in its place, it is always fine to have a lower main ability.

[Pex]

Didn't want to get into the specific character, but I want to head off the thread becoming a a back-and-forth theorycrafting exercise, so...

Without posting all the details, who considers this character "falling behind", and who does not?

Rogue (Thief) 3, Wizard (War Mage 2), UA revised Ranger (https://media.wizards.com/2016/dnd/downloads/UA_RevisedRanger.pdf) 1. 14 INT and 14 DEX (13 STR, 14 CON, 13 WIS, 10 CHA, Half Elf).


(Using point buy for this because it's just me working on something, I can do into depth on all the "stuff" if that makes a difference.)

I'd be more upset you went with war mage than your ability scores :smallbiggrin: , but if you like the subclass . . .

Personal bias when it comes to combat I suspect you will shine in contribution taking out the mooks, which is an important job. Since I would be playing a more specialized character I'm going after the BBEG of the fight and would be most thankful of you keeping the mooks occupied and not bothering me.

[Max_Killjoy]

I'd be more upset you went with war mage than your ability scores :smallbiggrin: , but if you like the subclass . . .

Personal bias when it comes to combat I suspect you will shine in contribution taking out the mooks, which is an important job. Since I would be playing a more specialized character I'm going after the BBEG of the fight and would be most thankful of you keeping the mooks occupied and not bothering me.

WarMage is literally the only way I've found in published material to gain some sort of across-the-list good Saves before the mid-teen levels (Monk frex), and the INT bonus to Initiative synergizes with the Rev Ranger's Advantage on Initiative nicely.

[Provo]

WarMage is literally the only way I've found in published material to gain some sort of across-the-list good Saves before the mid-teen levels (Monk frex), and the INT bonus to Initiative synergizes with the Rev Ranger's Advantage on Initiative nicely.

Barbarian with resilient (Wisdom) will have the three big saves covered by level 4 (2 if they are vhuman) thanks to danger sense. Of course they also have great str saves. This is a great example of someone who may want to sacrifice some points from his main stat.

Of course Paladin can also have great saves early on. Yet again a character that might sacrifice some of their main stat to put points into cha.

[ChildofLuthic]

It's possible the DMs I've played with overcompensated on AC, but it's a catch-22. If the DM is running CR + 2 you need every +1 you can get. Because you're getting every +1 you can get the DM feels the need to run CR + 2. It's just a matter of which came first - the players getting +1s or the DM running CR + 2.

As a DM I really try to avoid running monsters 2 levels above CR, except for bosses. I'd rather boost HP than AC (since not hitting is FRUSTRATING) and I'd rather just let my players kill a bunch of low-CR monsters (so they can feel like they're making lots of progress) than have them feel like they're making no progress against one high CR monster.

[NorthernPhoenix]

As a DM I really try to avoid running monsters 2 levels above CR, except for bosses. I'd rather boost HP than AC (since not hitting is FRUSTRATING) and I'd rather just let my players kill a bunch of low-CR monsters (so they can feel like they're making lots of progress) than have them feel like they're making no progress against one high CR monster.

It's almost like you understand the basic design philosophy of 5E! :wink:

[Max_Killjoy]

Barbarian with resilient (Wisdom) will have the three big saves covered by level 4 (2 if they are vhuman) thanks to danger sense. Of course they also have great str saves. This is a great example of someone who may want to sacrifice some points from his main stat.

Of course Paladin can also have great saves early on. Yet again a character that might sacrifice some of their main stat to put points into cha.

Thanks, I'll take a look at the Barbarian ability, I haven't really dug into Barbarian yet, so I had not noticed it. It's generally the least-likely class to fit any of my character concepts.

[Mitsu]

As a DM I really try to avoid running monsters 2 levels above CR, except for bosses. I'd rather boost HP than AC (since not hitting is FRUSTRATING) and I'd rather just let my players kill a bunch of low-CR monsters (so they can feel like they're making lots of progress) than have them feel like they're making no progress against one high CR monster.

God I want to print it and send to every DM so they can hang it on wall in their homes.

You'd be surprised how many don't get that...

[Pex]

As a DM I really try to avoid running monsters 2 levels above CR, except for bosses. I'd rather boost HP than AC (since not hitting is FRUSTRATING) and I'd rather just let my players kill a bunch of low-CR monsters (so they can feel like they're making lots of progress) than have them feel like they're making no progress against one high CR monster.


God I want to print it and send to every DM so they can hang it on wall in their homes.

You'd be surprised how many don't get that...

On that we're in agreement.

:smallsmile:

[Rerem115]

At 8th level, it matters a great deal. Not all, but many ACs are becoming 20+. Bad guy saving throw bonuses are increasing...When you're +2 what you were they're +4. When you're +3 they're +6. You need the 18 to keep up.


Uhm, do you have any example of bad guys showing up at lvl 8 or more that illustrate those tendencies, for you?

Sorry I'm a bit late to the party, but I understand where Pex is coming from. Now, this is anecdotal and should be taken with a grain of salt. but I've had a couple campaigns where the ACs would regularly push 20 early on. Giving plate (full or half) to Hobgobliins is nasty, especially as a CR appropriate combat, and any ugly (especially bosses!) that carries either the spell Shield or has a parry feature can have some pretty incredible ACs for the level. Also, while this only applies to ranged attacks, a DM who actually has foes use cover can make them darn near impossible to hit.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Sorry I'm a bit late to the party, but I understand where Pex is coming from. Now, this is anecdotal and should be taken with a grain of salt. but I've had a couple campaigns where the ACs would regularly push 20 early on. Giving plate (full or half) to Hobgobliins is nasty, especially as a CR appropriate combat, and any ugly (especially bosses!) that carries either the spell Shield or has a parry feature can have some pretty incredible ACs for the level. Also, while this only applies to ranged attacks, a DM who actually has foes use cover can make them darn near impossible to hit.

Note that changing the armor of enemies (or giving shield, etc) also often changes their CR, and thus the appropriateness of a particular encounter.

[Rerem115]

Note that changing the armor of enemies (or giving shield, etc) also often changes their CR, and thus the appropriateness of a particular encounter.

Using the Hobs as an example, giving them Full Plate changes them to CR 1. If you give a Hobgoblin Captain Full Plate and change his arms to Longsword and Shield, his CR doesn't even change. A handful of Hobgoblins and their Captain doesn't look like such an unreasonable encounter for a party in the 5-8, maybe even 3-8 level ranges. The numbers look fine, but if you've got a largely martial party, they could struggle. And we did.

[Tanarii]

Using the Hobs as an example, giving them Full Plate changes them to CR 1. If you give a Hobgoblin Captain Full Plate and change his arms to Longsword and Shield, his CR doesn't even change. A handful of Hobgoblins and their Captain doesn't look like such an unreasonable encounter for a party in the 5-8, maybe even 3-8 level ranges. The numbers look fine, but if you've got a largely martial party, they could struggle. And we did.
If your DM takes an already defensive monster, and crank/ up its AC even more while lowering its offense, there's no point in complaining about the monsters design or AC, or even a long drawn out combat (which you didn't but I could see someone doing). They're not the source of the issue. The DM is.

As far as world building goes: A rare rich enemy being plate armored starting around level 7-8 isn't totally whack of course. That's when PCs can start to afford it. A Knight NPC wears it, CR3 and thematically appropriate, they're minor nobles and relatively uncommon, and a knight leading a squad of soldiers including a veteran would be a solid challenge for PCs in that range.

But a full squad of hobgoblins in plate at level 5-8 doesn't wouldn't make much sense in most worlds.

[Unoriginal]

Full plate costs 1500 gps, why would the hobgoblin quartermasters give such valuable equipment to a bunch of mooks?

[Rerem115]

They were elites, well funded and supplied from an outside source.

[OverLordOcelot]

If your DM takes an already defensive monster, and crank/ up its AC even more while lowering its offense, there's no point in complaining about the monsters design or AC, or even a long drawn out combat (which you didn't but I could see someone doing). They're not the source of the issue. The DM is.

Also, the CR system is explicitly meant to be a guideline, the abilities by CR table is not meant to be a 'gameable' system. If you fiddle with numbers to try and push things just enough to not trip to the next highest CR bracket or to downgrade something that won't matter to offset something that will, of course it's going to break. It's not meant for competitive monster building.

And like other people have said, making an encounter of low level monsters with several thousand gold worth of equipment is really weird in most settings. The players might have a hard time beating it, but if they do then they should be able to sell/resize it and get a singnificant jump in their own power.

[Rerem115]

As you said, it's a DM issue. It's well within the realm of possibility to have a DM who likes to tinker with monster design, and if yours likes to buff ACs, I understand why it would feel important to max out your primary stat.

[Tanarii]

They were elites, well funded and supplied from an outside source.
I'd have been making an argument that the scrap has some value, unlike normal armor. "Wow guys, look at this haul. Gotta be worth at least 300gp per gobbo!" :smallamused:

[Max_Killjoy]

Also, the CR system is explicitly meant to be a guideline, the abilities by CR table is not meant to be a 'gameable' system. If you fiddle with numbers to try and push things just enough to not trip to the next highest CR bracket or to downgrade something that won't matter to offset something that will, of course it's going to break. It's not meant for competitive monster building.

And like other people have said, making an encounter of low level monsters with several thousand gold worth of equipment is really weird in most settings. The players might have a hard time beating it, but if they do then they should be able to sell/resize it and get a singnificant jump in their own power.

On that side note, I can only see that working as a "hook".

"Where the heck did these hill gobos get good half plate and well-made glaives?" is a question that can lead to an entire arc.



I'd have been making an argument that the scrap has some value, unlike normal armor. "Wow guys, look at this haul. Gotta be worth at least 300gp per gobbo!" :smallamused:

https://www.yesthievescan.com/thievescant-comic/thieves-cant-loot-anymore-monsters/

https://www.yesthievescan.com/thievescant-comic/this-may-be-a-response-comic/


:biggrin:

[Unoriginal]

They were elites, well funded and supplied from an outside source.

You're not an elite when you'd be a CR 1/2 mook if someone didn't spend 1500 gps to equip you.

Now don't get me wrong, hobgoblins represented by the Hobgoblin statblock are good soldiers, but their to-hit mod and HPs makes them only a bit better than your average Guard.

Plate armor is more expensive, and in truth more life-changing, than a Common magic item. Even many Uncommon items can't match its usefulness.


I know it's beside your points, but still, that scenario is not something that I can imagine as illustrating a tendency for the kind of adversaries the PCs would face.

[AHF]

I say that for melee it's super important. Hence why you see in majority of optimized melee builds Variant Human, because he can take that crucial talent either on 1st level (like PAM) or already pump that main stat to 20 at level 4 so at level 8 he can take a crucial talent (typical tactic for Devotion Paladins, +2 CHA 1st level, +2 CHA 4th level, GWM on 8th level to fully counter -5).



Pretty sure you can’t take an ASI at level 1.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Pretty sure you can’t take an ASI at level 1.

But if you're variant human you can take a feat, which is what is required here.

[KorvinStarmast]

https://www.yesthievescan.com/thievescant-comic/thieves-cant-loot-anymore-monsters/

https://www.yesthievescan.com/thievescant-comic/this-may-be-a-response-comic/

:biggrin:
Heh, thanks for the links.
In re the OP:
FWIW, a friend of mine is in a Tier 4 campaign and he's never raised his Paladin's Strength over 16. He's got PAM, GWF (IIRC he uses a Halberd) and I think Sentinal or something else.
He boosted his Charisma (in part to make his aura more effective for the party, also Spell DC!)
He uses his smites a lot, obviously.
And he currently rides a Pegasus thanks to that boosted Find Steed spell from XGTE.

[Max_Killjoy]

Ever notice that once in a while, the forums put the wrong person in the quote box?

(I posted the links to Thieves Can't.)

[KorvinStarmast]

Ever notice that once in a while, the forums put the wrong person in the quote box?
Fixed with an edit.