How much worse is +1/+1/+1 than +2/+1?

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm mulling over the first stages of a complete racial overhaul (separating race and culture entirely into Ancestry[0] and Culture[0.5], which are decided mostly[1] separately) for my setting.

As part of that, I'm thinking that every ancestry/culture combo would get 3 +1 ASIs--+1 from ancestry and +1/+1 from Culture. Some combinations could overlap, producing +2/+1, while others would end up with +1/+1/+1. None would produce +3/+0.

Custom Lineage and the Racial Customization options from Tashas are completely off the table here.

I'm not much of an optimizer, but I know lots of people are. So the question becomes are combinations that only have +1/+1/+1 so far inferior to a +2/+1 combination that they're effectively meaningless/so sub-optimal as to just be disregarded?

I generally use Standard Array, although rolling (4d6 drop lowest) is accepted, generally.

[0] Those parts that are biological in origin, including lifespan, size, base speed, and general appearance. This would grant +1 to one ability score and one or two features such as breath weapon (dragonborn), water breathing (triton), wings (aarocokra), darkvision (probably fewer than have it now), etc. Things that you're unlikely to just pick up by being raised in a different culture.

[0.5] Cultures grant +1/+1 based on traits, plus a selection of other features that can be learned. Especially proficiencies.

[1] In this draft, cultures have "suggested" races, they're mostly open to any race. Departing from the "suggestions" only means that I'll ask people to justify and explain how a <X> ended up in <Y> from a young enough age to have assimilated thoroughly. Adventurers are, by setting definition, the exception to most patterns. So while most Wyrmholders are dragonborn, orcs, or goblinoids, it's not impossible for a human or even elf to have grown up in that culture. Etc. Some cultures represent nation-level (or even international) behavior patterns, while others are specific to particular areas within a nation or are amalgams of "similar" cultures (ie a common forest tribal culture for all the varied tribes of one particular region).

[Jerrykhor]

A lot worse. You can just look at how little people value standard humans ability score bonus even though its a total of +6.

[Gignere]

A lot worse. You can just look at how little people value standard humans ability score bonus even though its a total of +6.

Not really, the choice is more like 6 + 1s versus 2 + 1s and a feat, or +2/+1 and a whole slew of other racial features. In this case it’s just 3 +1s vs +2/+1. Assuming both will get approximately equal racial features outside of ability scores, it’s much more balanced. I think if I played a MAD class I’d prefer the 3 +1s over +2/+1.

[micahaphone]

I'd say it partially depends on what class - 90% of the time the +2/+1 is better but for some of the MAD situations I'd maybe take the +1/+1/+1, like for a monk, especially a 4E monk.

[Tanarii]

It removes 16/16/13, 17/15/13 and 17/14/14 as starting options for top 3 stats, assuming someone lined up race with top three stats.

16/15/14 was already an option, but it'll become the only option if someone wants to line up ancestry/culture with top 3 stats.

[Dork_Forge]

I'm mulling over the first stages of a complete racial overhaul (separating race and culture entirely into Ancestry[0] and Culture[0.5], which are decided mostly[1] separately) for my setting.

As part of that, I'm thinking that every ancestry/culture combo would get 3 +1 ASIs--+1 from ancestry and +1/+1 from Culture. Some combinations could overlap, producing +2/+1, while others would end up with +1/+1/+1. None would produce +3/+0.

Custom Lineage and the Racial Customization options from Tashas are completely off the table here.

I'm not much of an optimizer, but I know lots of people are. So the question becomes are combinations that only have +1/+1/+1 so far inferior to a +2/+1 combination that they're effectively meaningless/so sub-optimal as to just be disregarded?

I generally use Standard Array, although rolling (4d6 drop lowest) is accepted, generally.

[0] Those parts that are biological in origin, including lifespan, size, base speed, and general appearance. This would grant +1 to one ability score and one or two features such as breath weapon (dragonborn), water breathing (triton), wings (aarocokra), darkvision (probably fewer than have it now), etc. Things that you're unlikely to just pick up by being raised in a different culture.

[0.5] Cultures grant +1/+1 based on traits, plus a selection of other features that can be learned. Especially proficiencies.

[1] In this draft, cultures have "suggested" races, they're mostly open to any race. Departing from the "suggestions" only means that I'll ask people to justify and explain how a <X> ended up in <Y> from a young enough age to have assimilated thoroughly. Adventurers are, by setting definition, the exception to most patterns. So while most Wyrmholders are dragonborn, orcs, or goblinoids, it's not impossible for a human or even elf to have grown up in that culture. Etc. Some cultures represent nation-level (or even international) behavior patterns, while others are specific to particular areas within a nation or are amalgams of "similar" cultures (ie a common forest tribal culture for all the varied tribes of one particular region).

3x+1 isn't bad at all, and it'd actually be better for some classes and builds (Monks, Paladins, Rangers and Barbarians for instance would love that kind of spread as they're all inherently rather MAD).

I think my personal preference would be a choice, depending on what you choose you could end up with a 3x+1 spread or a +2/+1. I think that would lead to a more flexible system that would accomodate the larger amount of play styles, including having stats that exist purely for the 'character' e.g. a positive Int score on a PC the player feels should be smart, even though their class doesn't utilise Int at all.


A personal note if you're overhauling things anyway, I'd make Darkvision a lot more rare. Right now it feels like the norm and you're lacking if you don't have it, rather than being a boon to have.


A lot worse. You can just look at how little people value standard humans ability score bonus even though its a total of +6.

Standard Humans are terrible because that's all they get, you end up with no Darkvision, no cool racial abilties, not even a racial skill bump. Your race very quickly begins to feel like dead weight because you don't actively feel the benefit of all those +1s most of the time (unless you're purposely playing a build so MAD that vanilla Human was the only way to pull it off).

[kazaryu]

I'm mulling over the first stages of a complete racial overhaul (separating race and culture entirely into Ancestry[0] and Culture[0.5], which are decided mostly[1] separately) for my setting.

As part of that, I'm thinking that every ancestry/culture combo would get 3 +1 ASIs--+1 from ancestry and +1/+1 from Culture. Some combinations could overlap, producing +2/+1, while others would end up with +1/+1/+1. None would produce +3/+0.

Custom Lineage and the Racial Customization options from Tashas are completely off the table here.

I'm not much of an optimizer, but I know lots of people are. So the question becomes are combinations that only have +1/+1/+1 so far inferior to a +2/+1 combination that they're effectively meaningless/so sub-optimal as to just be disregarded?

I generally use Standard Array, although rolling (4d6 drop lowest) is accepted, generally.

[0] Those parts that are biological in origin, including lifespan, size, base speed, and general appearance. This would grant +1 to one ability score and one or two features such as breath weapon (dragonborn), water breathing (triton), wings (aarocokra), darkvision (probably fewer than have it now), etc. Things that you're unlikely to just pick up by being raised in a different culture.

[0.5] Cultures grant +1/+1 based on traits, plus a selection of other features that can be learned. Especially proficiencies.

[1] In this draft, cultures have "suggested" races, they're mostly open to any race. Departing from the "suggestions" only means that I'll ask people to justify and explain how a <X> ended up in <Y> from a young enough age to have assimilated thoroughly. Adventurers are, by setting definition, the exception to most patterns. So while most Wyrmholders are dragonborn, orcs, or goblinoids, it's not impossible for a human or even elf to have grown up in that culture. Etc. Some cultures represent nation-level (or even international) behavior patterns, while others are specific to particular areas within a nation or are amalgams of "similar" cultures (ie a common forest tribal culture for all the varied tribes of one particular region).

not really that much worse. as it stands you can start off with a max of a 17 (18 if you go V. human and take a half feat), with 3 +1's instead you'd be at a 16. now you need 2 full ASI's to get to 20 instead of a full ASI and a half feat. meaning that if your your build wants you to take a feat at lvl 8, your stuck with a 18 primary stat. So when comparing the two differences, thats really what you're looking at. having a +4 primary AS vs a +5. and while in most situations, getting your primary stat to 20 is optimal (compared to taking a feat) its not actually better by a large margin.

[Pex]

A lot worse. You can just look at how little people value standard humans ability score bonus even though its a total of +6.

The problem is not the +1s. The problem is the lack of anything else. People are happy with Variant Human only having +1/+1 while other races get +2/+1 because the bonus Feat and skill are a big deal.

+1/+1/+1 is fine provided you get Nice Things along with it and presuming Point Buy a decent version of it. Decent is subjective to the observer, but you know my qualifications.

[Dienekes]

So the general rule of thumb is that you want to be able to start with a minimum of 16 in your primary ability score. That's it. Once you have that you're pretty much going to be at the "good enough" level of effectiveness.

Now getting a starting score of 17 is considered slightly better because it allows you to also gain the benefits of one of the half feats without lowering your character below the planned effectiveness curve of:

Level 1: +3 modifier in primary stat
Level 4: +4 modifier in primary stat
Level 8: +5 modifier in primary stat

Which in most (but not all) cases is the mathematically most effective way to make a generic character of *insert class.*

And +1/+1/+1 allows that.

On a side note:


So, I did something very similar a few months back, down to separate race and culture with a select subsection of cultures geared toward but not required to be taken by each race.

Though I ended up deciding just to let the player add +2/+1 regardless of race/culture combination. And focused more on rebalancing the races so they still felt like distinctive creatures without the overpowered options Tasha's would allow.

If you want you can pillage it for ideas here: https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/print/CVlFwFSwm

Though I understand some web browsers may misalign things. If you look I hope it's helpful.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So the general rule of thumb is that you want to be able to start with a minimum of 16 in your primary ability score. That's it. Once you have that you're pretty much going to be at the "good enough" level of effectiveness.

Now getting a starting score of 17 is considered slightly better because it allows you to also gain the benefits of one of the half feats without lowering your character below the planned effectiveness curve of:

Level 1: +3 modifier in primary stat
Level 4: +4 modifier in primary stat
Level 8: +5 modifier in primary stat

Which in most (but not all) cases is the mathematically most effective way to make a generic character of *insert class.*

And +1/+1/+1 allows that.

On a side note:


So, I did something very similar a few months back, down to separate race and culture with a select subsection of cultures geared toward but not required to be taken by each race.

Though I ended up deciding just to let the player add +2/+1 regardless of race/culture combination. And focused more on rebalancing the races so they still felt like distinctive creatures without the overpowered options Tasha's would allow.

If you want you can pillage it for ideas here: https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/print/CVlFwFSwm

Though I understand some web browsers may misalign things. If you look I hope it's helpful.



Note: the planned curve by the DMG's math is not 20 stat by level 8. It's more like 20 main stat by level 16-18.

+2 is fine until level 5-6, +3 throughout t2, +4 through t3 and even t4, +5 is nice but not expected.

I'm not opposed to higher scores, but I strongly don't think they're expected, and that's one component of why people complain 5e is too easy--they're well above the expected power curve and haven't adapted the encounter math to fit.

But thanks for the ideas though.

[Dienekes]

Note: the planned curve by the DMG's math is not 20 stat by level 8. It's more like 20 main stat by level 16-18.

+2 is fine until level 5-6, +3 throughout t2, +4 through t3 and even t4, +5 is nice but not expected.

I'm not opposed to higher scores, but I strongly don't think they're expected, and that's one component of why people complain 5e is too easy--they're well above the expected power curve and haven't adapted the encounter math to fit.

But thanks for the ideas though.

That's kind of the thing. The DMG's guide on how to play the game is generally not the optimized way to play the game which I thought is what you were asking for. If I am mistaken then I apologize.

[diplomancer]

Assuming point-buy, it's not worse in the abstract, unless you have a good half feat you plan to take with your character. If using PHB alone (i.e, no Elven Accuracy, no Fey-Touched, etc), it's probably better as a whole, as it allows 3 stats to start at 16 if you need to, unless you are very SAD (i.e, a Fighter or a Rogue- all other classes want at least decent Dex,Con,+1, or Str,Con,+1, Fighters and Rogues don't need the 3rd +1)

If Standard Array, then +2,+1 is better (there are a few exceptions, which might prefer a 16 15 14 12 10 8 array, instead of 16 16 13 12 10 8, mostly casters with Medium Armor Proficiency)

[Arkhios]

Assuming point-buy, there's not much difference to be honest.

A +2 may get you at most a 17 in one score. ASI will bring it to 18-19, depending how you approach it.

A +1 gets you at most a 16 in one score. With ASI, you can bring it to 17-18, as you wish.

Point being, 16-17 provides the same modifier to your rolls, just as 18-19 does. At first ASI interval, you can reach same modifiers regardless of your initial score. It's true, assuming feats are in use, a 17 in a stat may have a measure of advantage in that you might be able to gain something extra, but keep in mind that, while very common, feats are not always allowed.

Even so, most half-feats aren't all that gamebreaking.

[KorvinStarmast]

Assuming point-buy, there's not much difference to be honest. That's my take as well. FWIW, the Volo's Guide to Monsters Triton has three +1's.

[Tanarii]

It's buried I'm the middle, but no point buy.


I generally use Standard Array, although rolling (4d6 drop lowest) is accepted, generally.

[Keravath]

If you are using point buy then they are almost identical as long as the character has 3 scores at 14 or above. Though +1/+1/+1 does allow for 16/16/16/8/8/8 which is not possible with +2/+1

The +2 option is the ONLY way to start with a 17 and later combine with a half-feat to obtain 18.

This would make +2/+1 strictly better than +1/+1/+1 when using point buy since it opens up more options (unless the build specifically needs the one array 16/16/16/8/8/8).

---

Using standard array, the situation is even worse for +1/+1/+1. Starting with: 15/14/13/12/10/8, +2/+1 can reproduce most of the distributions possible with +1/+1/+1 as well as the ones that can't be done with +1/+1/+1 - like starting with a 17 or two 16s which are out of the reach of +1/+1/+1.

So from a min/max point of view where there are two important stats, +2/+1 is strictly better and allows for a wider variety of stat arrays.

---

Why is standard human ignored so much? It provides 6 +1s and most people consider THAT inferior to +2/+1 (though part of that is the other racial abilities that come with the +2/+1 vs the lack for the variant human) .. but for most classes, after boosting your primary and secondary stat, the rest of the +1s are mostly just curiosities since they don't help much mechanically.

(edit: for example a standard human with standard array is 16/15/14/13/11/9. The 13, 11, and 9 don't do much for a character except give one more stat the 13 needed if you wanted to multiclass. Practically, it is the same as +1/+1/+1 for most cases and the +2/+1 is generally better than +1/+1/+1 since it allows for a 17 or 2x16s to start and a focus during character development on boosting primary stats)


There are a few MAD classes/builds/multiclasses where three stats are useful and important where +1/+1/+1 might be a better choice but most of the time given a choice between +2/+1 and +1/+1/+1, all else being equal, the +2/+1 is superior or the same depending on how it is distributed.

[Bobthewizard]

With point buy, it doesn't matter much. 3 +1's might be better for some builds because you could go 16/16/16/8/8/8 while +2/+1 could only get to 16/16/15/10/8/8. Although the +2/+1 could start with a 17 to take a half-feat later on.

With standard array, +2/+1 is probably better. There are only two odd scores with standard array so you are wasting one of the +1's if you have 3 of them. Generally, 16/16/13 is better than 16/15/14.

[diplomancer]

If only Standard Array, +2,+1 is better, as you can have either 16,16,13, or 16,15,14, depending on what's better for your charcter. How much better, in case you are trying to balance them? Hard to say. If you give a small benefit to start with 3 +1s instead of +2,+1, end result will be that those who want 16,15,14 will choose the one, those who want to start with 2 16s will choose the other.

[stoutstien]

Note: the planned curve by the DMG's math is not 20 stat by level 8. It's more like 20 main stat by level 16-18.

+2 is fine until level 5-6, +3 throughout t2, +4 through t3 and even t4, +5 is nice but not expected.

I'm not opposed to higher scores, but I strongly don't think they're expected, and that's one component of why people complain 5e is too easy--they're well above the expected power curve and haven't adapted the encounter math to fit.

But thanks for the ideas though.
Eh any sort of guidelines in the DMG are close to the middle of the bottom rather than any sort of planned curve. It's closer to what a DM can assume as a minimum at any certain point. it's twice as ludicrous if the base assumption is a featless game which is a optional rule. What else are they going to spend their ASI's on?

Even for a non optimized player starting with a 14 in primary stat(s) they can safely max them out well before the DMGs guesstimations.

[Vegan Squirrel]

I feel like it's a wash; they both have pros and cons, and your system would let the optimization-minded players get that +2/+1 anyway if it suits them. I think of my character creation style as optimization-informed, though I strongly prioritize character over stats and actively avoid the most powerful options since they can feel OP. As such, I've always chosen the standard array, and +1/+1/+1 sounds great to me. That can net you an array of 16/15/14/12/10/8, which gives you a +3 primary stat and two +2 secondary stats, one of which is a half-feat away from a +3. You can easily use these rules to build a strong, competent character that you'll have fun playing, and some players will be thrilled to get +1 to three different abilities while also getting useful features from their race and culture.

[Tanarii]

it's twice as ludicrous if the base assumption is a featless game which is a optional rule. What else are they going to spend their ASI's on?
Con.

Seriously, the trade off I saw in AL/One Shots compared to my featless game was SAD classes would generally be sacrifice raising Con for feats, not maxing their attack score as fast as possible. Durability was generally lower starting at 8th (or 6th for fighter) in feat'd games.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Con.

Seriously, the trade off I saw in AL/One Shots compared to my featless game was SAD classes would generally be sacrifice raising Con for feats, not maxing their attack score as fast as possible. Durability was generally lower starting at 8th (or 6th for fighter) in feat'd games.

That and covering weak points. In a featless game, there's absolutely no reason to have a Fighter who can't switch hit respectably. Sure, not super optimized, but if you've got 18 STR and 14/16 DEX, you can absolutely pick up a longbow and use it throughout the game. That's the point of having the system math not require a maxed stat at all--you can still contribute with acceptably degraded performance even in off-role tasks. Or having a Fighter who can't interact with the rest of the game other than "whack it with a stick"--you can actually afford to not dump CHA and INT.

Personally, I'm a fan of using proficiencies and expertises (especially the latter) to shore up weaknesses rather than pumping strengths off the charts. A rogue with Stealth expertise or a bard with Persuasion expertise is totally overkill--the scale just stops at DC 20 for 99% of the cases. Beating their passive perception by 20 doesn't get you anything extra compared to beating it by 1. But putting that expertise into something where your stat is only +1 or +2 (or even -1) and you've basically gotten the benefit of proficiency + a maxxed stat. That's a benefit of the much lower scale of DCs, as long as DMs don't play the arms-race game and try to "challenge" the specializers (and thus deny participation to anyone without expertise and a maxed stat).

[KorvinStarmast]

Hmmm, thinking through a vHuman Life cleric.

Str: 13 Dx 13 Con 14 I 9 W 15 Ch 8
Heavy Armor Master feat
Str 14 Dx 14 Con 14 I 9 W 16 Ch 8

Or, start with a 12 +1 Dx and plan for a +1 Dx Resilient Dex at higher levels (12) for save proficiency. That allows the Int to go to 10 and thus no subtractions to various ability checkis based on INT.

Why a build like this? Four person party, need a second front liner, and be survivable early on. The -3 damage reduction is most needed in early life, but we found that as multi attack enemies showed up in later tiers, our Tempest Cleric was still benefitting from the DR a bit. (Reduced the demand on various healing resources)

For any other race, the build works but doesn't get the Heavy Armor Master.

[Willie the Duck]

Even for standard array, 3x +1 isn't bad if you are going to be going for a class where your initial ASIs will be +2 <mainstat> until 20 along with Resilient. Example: A wizard could be Str* Dex13+1 Con14+1 Wis* Int 15+1 Cha* (*:8, 10, 12 as character-concept dictates) and your first 3 ASIs would be +2 Int, +2 Int, Resilient: Con (in no particular order).


The problem is not the +1s. The problem is the lack of anything else. People are happy with Variant Human only having +1/+1 while other races get +2/+1 because the bonus Feat and skill are a big deal.
Even beyond the lack of anything else, +1 across the board means much of the benefit goes to places where the bump-up does very little. With 3 +1s you are likely to arrange it so that they go somewhere meaningful (that, plus point-buy really disfavors arrangements where you actually benefit from all the +1s, and standard array actively works against it).

[stoutstien]

Con.

Seriously, the trade off I saw in AL/One Shots compared to my featless game was SAD classes would generally be sacrifice raising Con for feats, not maxing their attack score as fast as possible. Durability was generally lower starting at 8th (or 6th for fighter) in feat'd games.

I see more Wis and dex pushes but my players tend to do slot of information gathering and planning. Higher Cons scores are great but for some players they tend to view taking any noticeable amount of damage as a failure in it's own right.

In the featless games I've ran/played in I've seen a pattern of pushing primary up at 4 then secondary/trinary for 2 and maybe 3 ASI then back to primary. Dex classes are the exception here as they almost always go straight to 20.

[Dienekes]

Con.

Seriously, the trade off I saw in AL/One Shots compared to my featless game was SAD classes would generally be sacrifice raising Con for feats, not maxing their attack score as fast as possible. Durability was generally lower starting at 8th (or 6th for fighter) in feat'd games.

Out of curiosity, did this difference in Con matter in terms of group survivability?

Essentially, I'm curious if there noticeably more player deaths in the Feat game than in the non-Feat game over the course of a roughly equivalent amount of time. I understand this is a bit of a rocky comparison, I know that in my One Shots I tend to try to be more lethal than my long running games. But I would still like to hear how it went down for you.

[N810]

Probably because because you are limiting your self to the standard array.

[Tanarii]

Out of curiosity, did this difference in Con matter in terms of group survivability?

Essentially, I'm curious if there noticeably more player deaths in the Feat game than in the non-Feat game over the course of a roughly equivalent amount of time. I understand this is a bit of a rocky comparison, I know that in my One Shots I tend to try to be more lethal than my long running games. But I would still like to hear how it went down for you.Hard to compare.

My featless game was also sandboxy with choose your own difficulty and how far you want to push on. So it was generally far more lethal, because when you give players rope and a lethality dial, they'll almost always hang themselves.

One shots and AL are more level-tailored / balanced with an expectation of a relatively balanced adventuring day. So you can get away with for example heavy offense and weaker defense.

But also Feats and Multiclassing are usually powerful force multipliers. So the offense gained is significantly more than the defense lost.