Sweet Sixteen Forever: the Consequences of Never Increasing Your Key Stat?

[TaiLiu]

At level one, you usually want to start with your key stat as high as possible. With point buy or the standard array, you can have at most a +3 modifier. (Pre-Tasha's, I believe Changelings could exceptionally start with a +4 Charisma.) The standard wisdom is that you generally want to boost your key stat to a +5 as soon as possible.

This makes good sense: that stat probably governs things like your attack rolls or spell DCs, which you want as high as possible. But I wonder what the consequences are if you never boost your stat above a +3. Some are obvious, of course—your attack modifier or spell DCs or saving throws will be lower. But is it ever a good idea to just leave it as a +3? Does it change your playstyle?

Asking for myself. I have a Sorcerer with 16 (+3) Charisma, and I wonder how different my play might be if I never bump up that Charisma modifier.

[Angelalex242]

Well, your spells, practically speaking, will be 10 percent less likely to 'stick' or 'connect.'

In exchange, you'll probably have 2 more feats instead.

So what will you do with those feats?

[OldTrees1]

With the chance of failure slightly higher, you will slightly increase your valuation of things that do something on a failure. Like Fireball.

However mostly you will have spent your ASIs/Feats elsewhere and have more to play with.

Is it ever a good idea to stay with a 16? Yes. The game is designed assuming you will not necessarily ever get above a 14. So if you are considering staying at 16, then you probably see something that makes it worthwhile to stay at 16.

[AvatarVecna]

Casting stat matters for a number of things:
1) Spell Attack Bonuses
2) Spell Save DCs
3) Some (but only a few) class features
4) The number of prepared spells, if you prepare spells at all
5) Very limited spells that have effects dependent on casting stat (ie Cure Wounds)
6) Saves/Checks associated with that attribute

You'll be fine with less casting stat. Heck, you'd be fine with no casting stat if you tinkered with your build enough. A caster who doesn't care too much about the saves/checks associated with their casting stat could focus on buff spells. Bless doesn't care about casting stat. Neither does Haste. Even if you wanted to be a blaster or debuffer, we're just talking about a 10% difference. That's the difference between a fighter with the archery fighting style and a ranged rogue who has to go without it. It's not the end of the world.

[Eldariel]

Depends on the spells you prefer. If you like stuff Fog Cloud, Sleep, Silent Image, Pyrotechnics (Smoke), Sleet Storm, Animate Dead, Haste, Wall of X, Polymorph, Animate Objects, etc. then you largely won't care.

As a somewhat extreme example, the traditional Shepherd or Moon Druid cares unbelievably little of their Wis since largely their Concentration will be spent on Conjure Animals or Conjure Woodland Beings and Spike Growth or Pass without Trace if not that, and their cantrips are nothing to write home about anyways (and their contribution is relatively small), with Moon Druid being actually unable to cast them. They're much more interested in failproofing their Concentration ASAP and getting utility.

Now, you get more spells prepared on prep classes from your casting stat, which is a big deal especially early on (gets progressively less important as you level, though it never reaches the point of being completely meaningless); in the case of Sorc, Bard & Ranger you don't need to care about that. Bard has Bardic Inspiration and the derived class abilities but Sorc and Ranger actually care extremely little about their casting stat outside spell attack rolls and save DCs.


Those are never irrelevant. But whether they're as important as the feat? Depends. I generally find the top tier feats (Alert, Lucky, Res: Con) often preferable to stat increases which means I generally pump my casting stat in Tier 3 on most casters. Some people like to have 18 in their casting stat but don't care that much about the 20, which is kinda random (mathematically it's true that each additional point is largely worth less, but in a bounded accuracy system they tend to be of fairly similar value); by the same token you can just as easily leave casting stat at 16 and be just fine.

I've played tier 3 casters with 16 casting stat and it's not that big of a deal; you'll just have to be mindful of the fact when you pick your spells and choose what to cast against a given enemy. Especially single target save-or-X effects become less enticing (though they aren't generally great to start with unless you have ways to make them reliable like Diviner, Eloquence, or Chronurgist), but AOE is still pretty reliable as long as you catch multiple relatively affectable enemies, and spells without saves (which you'll gravitate more and more towards on Tier 3 due to Legendary Resistance) don't care.


Well, your spells, practically speaking, will be 10 percent less likely to 'stick' or 'connect.'


10 percent points outside the ends of the distribution. How many percents that is depends on where in the distribution the change happens.

[Addaran]

If you focus mostly on buffs, heal and help action, you won't notice it too much.
If you're a character with the Archery fighting style, you'll have the same accuracy then a meleer with 20 have.

But in general, you'll notice it, especially if you roll badly in general.

At lot of people say it's just 10% difference compared to having a 20. It's true, but not proportionnaly. If you normaly would need 13+ to hit and need 15+ to hit instead, that's 6 chances instead of 8. The other guy hits 33% more often then you.




Is it ever a good idea to stay with a 16? Yes. The game is designed assuming you will not necessarily ever get above a 14. So if you are considering staying at 16, then you probably see something that makes it worthwhile to stay at 16.

Where did you heard that. Seems that since you can start with a 14 on any race, and often with a 16 at lvl 1, they expect you to boost it eventually, especially since most characters and playera will want that.

[ff7hero]

Where did you heard that. Seems that since you can start with a 14 on any race, and often with a 16 at lvl 1, they expect you to boost it eventually, especially since most characters and playera will want that.

Especially since Feats are "optional." Did WotC balance the game (no, haha) assuming people were bumping tertiary stats?

[MaxWilson]

Where did you heard that. Seems that since you can start with a 14 on any race, and often with a 16 at lvl 1, they expect you to boost it eventually, especially since most characters and playera will want that.

This could be a reference to bounded accuracy. In the words (https://bluishcertainty.blogspot.com/2016/06/bounded-accuracy.html?m=1) of 5E designer Rodney Thompson,


"The basic premise behind the bounded accuracy system is simple: we make no assumptions on the DM's side of the game that the player's attack and spell accuracy, or their defenses, increase as a result of gaining levels. Instead, we represent the difference in characters of various levels primarily through their hit points, the amount of damage they deal, and the various new abilities they have gained...

Now, note that I said that we make no assumptions on the DM's side of the game about increased accuracy and defenses. This does not mean that the players do not gain bonuses to accuracy and defenses. It does mean, however, that we do not need to make sure that characters advance on a set schedule, and we can let each class advance at its own appropriate pace. Thus, wizards don't have to gain a +10 bonus to weapon attack rolls just for reaching a higher level in order to keep participating; if wizards never gain an accuracy bonus, they can still contribute just fine to the ongoing play experience.

This extends beyond simple attacks and damage. We also make the same assumptions about character ability modifiers and skill bonuses.

The 5E designers explicitly tried to design a game where never increasing your ability scores was a valid choice.

IMO they pretty much succeeded. If you leave your best score at 16, you'll notice some mild impact in several cases:

(1) If you're a Bard you'll have fewer Bardic Inspiration dice than with maxed Cha, will have to rely more on spells.

(2) If you're a monk you'll have significantly worse AC than with maxed Dex and Wis, will have to rely more on mobility.

(3) If you're fighting creatures resistant to magic, your offensive spells will fail significantly more often than normal, will have to either emphasize buffing or no-save spells more, or compensate somehow, e.g. by having a Diviner or Wild Mage in the party to offset the extra fails with extra successes. If the enemy is not magic resistant you'll notice a smaller and less significant effect, because without advantage on saves the curve is more linear.

(4) If you're a warrior relying on Sharpshooter or GWM for extra damage, you'll do significantly less damage and may regret not spending that ASI on Dex/Str instead of Sharpshooter/GWM, or not simply playing a warlock. This is the main case where I would tell you that not maxing the stat is like of a big deal. -5/+10 magnifies the importance of stats.

[MoiMagnus]

10 percent points outside the ends of the distribution. How many percents that is depends on where in the distribution the change happens.

He was probably talking in absolute numbers: with +3 instead of +5 in Charisma, there are (usually) 2 faces of the die where you fail instead of succeeding, so 10% of the rolls where you fail instead of succeeding.
[Which in relative numbers, assuming a base probability of success of 1/2, is a 20% loss of efficiency]

[Jerrykhor]

The same as usual: They won't matter until they do. You'll be kicking yourself if the target rolled exactly on the DC to pass the save. Though i'm the type who generally find 18 in my main stat to be enough.

[Eldariel]

The same as usual: They won't matter until they do. You'll be kicking yourself if the target rolled exactly on the DC to pass the save. Though i'm the type who generally find 18 in my main stat to be enough.

The real question is how likely that is to happen vs. how likely you are to benefit of the feat you took instead. Sure, it'll suck sometimes but how often and how impactfully vs. how often you get something of value out of whatever you spent the ASI on. It's an opportunity cost, after all.


He was probably talking in absolute numbers: with +3 instead of +5 in Charisma, there are (usually) 2 faces of the dice where you fail instead of succeeding, so 10% of the rolls where you fail instead of succeeding.
[Which in relative numbers, assuming a base probability of success of 1/2, is a 20% loss of efficiency]

Indeed, that is most likely the case. 10pp change, with a 10% chance of the die landing on the numbers where the change would be relevant (outside extreme cases where the success falls off the dice).

[JackPhoenix]

I don't know who, but someone once made an analysis of enemy stats. You're supposed to have 18 at level 12 to avoid falling behind, and having 20 at all puts you above the curve. So it's not 10%, it's 5%.

[Valmark]

I don't know who, but someone once made an analysis of enemy stats. You're supposed to have 18 at level 12 to avoid falling behind, and having 20 at all puts you above the curve. So it's not 10%, it's 5%.

It is 10% compared to having 20, not compared to the enemy stats.

[JackPhoenix]

It is 10% compared to having 20, not compared to the enemy stats.

Yes, and what matters are the enemy stats, not the unnecessary 20.

[KorvinStarmast]

Asking for myself. I have a Sorcerer with 16 (+3) Charisma, and I wonder how different my play might be if I never bump up that Charisma modifier. It's more important for a caster, I think.

Anecdote: a friend of mine began the game at level 1 with a Mountain Dwarf Paladin, Vengeance. STR 16. He never raised that stat. He got feats (GWM, PAM, Mounted Combatant) and boosted Charisma. He eventually ended up with a Belt of Giant Strength. The campaign ended at level 20. He still had a 16 Strength.

As a spell caster, I really dislike it when a spell doesn't land, particularly debuffs like Banishment, Hold person, Hold Monster, Bane, Bestow curse, etc. It feels like such a waste. So I have become almost manic in my quest for a higher casting stat (although my warlock stopped at level 8 with a Cha of 18 to grab a feat: Warcaster). When we found a rod of the pact keeper at level 9 after a hard fight I was over-the-moon pleased.

[RogueJK]

It's more important for a caster, I think.

As a spell caster, I really dislike it when a spell doesn't land, particularly debuffs like Banishment, Hold person, Hold Monster, Bane, Bestow curse, etc. It feels like such a waste.

Certain casters wouldn't be as hard hit. For example, a Sorcerer with Heighten Spell could spend sorcery points to help overcome their lower save DC. Or an Eloquence Bard could use their Bonus Action Unsettling Words for a similar effect. In addition, Sorcerers and Bards aren't dependent on their casting stat to dictate how many spells they can have prepared.

And as mentioned earlier, it depends on what spells the caster is focusing on. If they're primarily a buffer, summoner, and utility caster, casting stat matters less.

[Catullus64]

The place where a perpetual 16 would hurt the most for casters is probably in spell preparation, which of course isn't a concern for Sorcerers. I know that no matter how many spells prepared I have as a Cleric, Druid, or Wizard, it never feels like enough.

Having one fewer spell in your toolkit for a day at least feels more impactful than a 5-10% increased failure chance.

[da newt]

If you are OK with a lower casting stat (DC and to hit) and/or are building around a lower casting stat (buffs, area affects, summons, etc), lower primary stat ability bonuses, and lower primary stats saves, you can create a very viable PC and even boost them in many significant ways with feats like alert, RES XXX, inspiring leader, lucky, or even some less popular feats like tough (if you want to play a hill dwarf dragonic sorc w/ hp like a barbarian), etc.

Conventional wisdom (which may be an oxymoron) is to min-max for greatest combat prowess, but there are many ways to contribute effectively especially if you plan a little. It makes maxing your DPR a bit more difficult, but if you are looking to CC, support, etc ...

[Catullus64]

Conventional wisdom (which may be an oxymoron) is to min-max for greatest combat prowess, but there are many ways to contribute effectively especially if you plan a little. It makes maxing your DPR a bit more difficult, but if you are looking to CC, support, etc ...

Where's the oxymoron?

[KorvinStarmast]

Conventional wisdom (which may be an oxymoron) is to min-max for greatest combat prowess, but there are many ways to contribute effectively especially if you plan a little. It makes maxing your DPR a bit more difficult, but if you are looking to CC, support, etc ... My bard is built as a support caster. She buffs and debuffs. The debuffs is where I have to boost her casting stat, and also get that resilient Con to increase her chances for keeping the concentration up on either.

[Eldariel]

The place where a perpetual 16 would hurt the most for casters is probably in spell preparation, which of course isn't a concern for Sorcerers. I know that no matter how many spells prepared I have as a Cleric, Druid, or Wizard, it never feels like enough.

Having one fewer spell in your toolkit for a day at least feels more impactful than a 5-10% increased failure chance.

Certainly, though much of that is a feeling. If you prepare an optimal loadout (for whatever you expect to face + generalist spells), you won't need that many spells to cover all your bases. It's certainly more impactful early rather than late; you don't really need that many Wis save AOE disables if you already have Hypnotic Pattern (or Fear or Slow), though there's value to having multiples. Similarly, you won't necessarily miss AOE damage if you have Fireball or Synaptic Static even though there are times when you'd prefer another spell. Many spells have a degree of redundancy or specificity that allows you to make do, though extra spells prepared are of course never amiss. Still, the value of each additional spell is of course less than the previous ones.

That said, Druid is generally fine with fairly few spells prepared since their spell list is so imbalanced; there are few absurdly strong spells and a lot of fairly replaceable effects.


I generally would prefer to have 18-20 Int/Wis for especially Tier 1 (pre-level 3 spells both Clerics and Druids ironically have much more latitude in their picks - once Spirit Guardians/Conjure Animals enter the ring, your Concentration should be spent on those in combat vast majority of the time so you can spare the other spells known for out-of-combat and solving the corner cases, where this is not the case; Wizard is the odd one out in this regard though) and gradually drop to lower amounts on higher levels as redundancy of effects kicks in (you won't really need Thunder Step and Misty Step or Web and Black Tentacles; take your pick).

EDIT: Ironically all of this just highlights that Wizard is really the class most incentivised to max their casting stat in terms of spells prepared, and yet even they are largely fine with 16 all career. Though Cleric makes use of it in the form of Potent Cantrip and their plethora of attacking and damaging spells; Druid cares precious little, Bard really cares for Bardic Inspiration but even there 3/SR is often plenty (depending on the subclass), Sorcerer cares fairly little, Warlock obviously cares for spell attacks due to how important Eldritch Blast/Hex Warrior is to most.

So I'd say the order of casting stat importance is something like Warlock > Cleric = Bard > Wizard > Sorcerer > Druid.

[Person_Man]

What are other party members doing? And does your DM hand out magic items that grant bonuses? And do you care?

As others have pointed out, you can probably leave it alone and you’ll be 10-15%ish less effect on certain things, balanced by whatever additional benefits you gain from Feats. But if other players are min-maxing and using splat books, you may have less fun at the table because you’re succeeding less often. On the other hand, if everyone has mediocre numbers, the DM will probably give the party less challenging encounters. Its really just your tolerance for failure compared to others, vs the desire to have more options to play with from Feats. You’re not going to suck horribly just because you didn’t follow a specific optimized build.

[KingofSnakes]

I think for most characters, increasing their main stat is something like the second or third most optimal thing to do with an ASI/Feat, which means that at level 8 the character with, say, Polearm Master and Sentinel and Str 16 or Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter and Dex 16 is comparing *just fine* to the character with Str 20 or Dex 20 and no feats. A character with Str 18 and Lucky probably hits just as often as a character with Str 20 and, furthermore, is more likely to be able to hit when it *really matters*.

Eventually (and sooner for Fighters and Rogues), you will start to run out of feats that are better or as good as main stat increases. But that doesn't happen until the kind of levels most people don't play to and you will still probably be alright, just not quite as potent as the hypothetical alternative.

I am slightly puzzled by people talking as though maximizing your primary stat is top tier ruthless optimization; it usually isn't the most powerful option on the table. What it is a pretty good, pretty obvious option that makes your character better without making them particularly more complicated. Which is a great option to have in the game! You can tell someone playing a glaive-wielding barbarian "You could take Polearm Master and get these new things or Great Weapon Master and get these new things or, if you want to keep in simple, you can put up your Strength and increase your numbers by 1".

[Pex]

A 16 is fine from lower to mid levels, but from mid to high levels it hurts you. Your proficiency still increases, but the bad guys also get a proficiency increase and their prime is going up. You're falling behind. You may not notice it in an instance of a round, but over time it makes a difference. Getting the 18 at 8th level matters, because next level is the proficiency jump. Having both is a +2 difference from where you were at 7th level. That adds up as the encounters happen. You can afford the feat at 4th level to stay at 16 if you really want that feat. The 18 at 4th level gives you a bit of a math edge then take the feat at 8th level. The 20 can wait. Obviously it helps going 18 at 4th level and 20 at 8th level, but not having the 20 doesn't hurt you. A 20 can wait until 12th level, even 16th. An 18 works well enough between levels 8 and 15 as the 16 did between 1 and 7.

I won't say you're the Absolute Suck only having a 16 forever levels 1 to 20. I'll take for granted not increasing the 16 means you diversified yourself a bit such that you're contributing well enough in the sum of your variety of things to do, but I'll notice as your hypothetical party member you'll miss the attack roll and the monster makes his saving throw more than me who does have the 18 or 20.

[Kvess]

You can definitely build a spellcaster without maximizing your casting stat, but if you are going to be primarily casting spells then you are going to feel a benefit from the +2 to spell attacks and DCs in every round of combat — and many situations out of combat. If you are going to take a feat instead, it’s worth asking how often you are going to benefit from it.

You can prioritize Resilient or War Caster to improve your concentration saves, but if you want to prioritize defence you can address that with tactics: you can often duck behind terrain or into a corridor at the end of your turn. You don’t need to make as many concentration saves if you aren’t in a position to be pelted with arrows.

[Dark.Revenant]

I'm going with a bog standard nonmagical-greatsword-wielding half-orc Champion as the point of comparison here. Ludic's damage calculator in play.

Overall, averaged over the snapshot ASI levels I've shown below, going up to 20 STR and then nabbing GWM, versus getting GWM immediately and then staying at 16 STR for your whole career, increases damage by about 27.5%. Therefore spending two ASIs on maxing Strength, ignoring all the other benefits, effectively turns a 5-turns-to-kill situation into a 4-turns-to-kill situation. The exact level of benefit depends on magic items, of course. If you feel that amount of performance is worth the two ASIs, go for it.

Note: a similar principle applies to most spells, although the calculus there is a little different because of the fact that most spells don't add your modifier to the effect. Overall it's slightly less important for a caster to max the casting stat than for a martial to max the martial stat, even if you're using spells that do nothing if they miss. That said, having a weaker Save DC requires carefully collecting spells that can target creatures' weak saves. 16 Int vs 20 Int is technically only a 10% difference, linearly, but let's put that into perspective: Against a creature with a +4 save, a DC 17 spell lands 60% of the time. If the spell is DC 15, it lands 50% of the time. That means, over the course of the adventure, the spell will land 20% more often if you have the higher Save DC. That might still be acceptable to you, but against a +9 save, a DC 17 spell lands 35% of the time, while DC 15 lands 25% of the time. In that case, the higher Save DC would make your spell land 40% more often!

Level 4 (vs AC 14)
14 STR: 6.93 DPR
16 STR: 8.05 DPR
14 STR + GWM: 8.09 DPR
18 STR: 9.23 DPR
16 STR + GWM: 9.59 DPR

Level 6 (vs AC 15)
14 STR: 13.87 DPR
14 STR + GWM: 16.10 DPR
16 STR: 16.10 DPR
18 STR: 18.53 DPR
16 STR + GWM: 19.09 DPR
20 STR: 21.17 DPR
18 STR + GWM: 22.30 DPR

Level 8 (vs AC 16)
14 STR: 12.83 DPR
14 STR + GWM: 14.05 DPR
16 STR: 14.97 DPR
16 STR + GWM: 16.75 DPR
18 STR: 17.30 DPR
20 STR: 19.83 DPR
18 STR + GWM: 19.86 DPR
20 STR + GWM: 23.18 DPR

Level 12 (vs AC 17) and Level 14 (vs AC 18)
14 STR: 19.25 DPR
14 STR + GWM: 20.99 DPR
16 STR: 22.45 DPR
16 STR + GWM: 25.02 DPR
18 STR: 25.95 DPR
18 STR + GWM: 29.66 DPR
20 STR: 29.75 DPR
20 STR + GWM: 34.62 DPR

Level 16 (vs AC 18) and Level 19 (vs AC 19)
14 STR: 21.13 DPR
14 STR + GWM: 23.84 DPR
16 STR: 24.33 DPR
18 STR: 27.83 DPR
16 STR + GWM: 28.02 DPR
20 STR: 31.63 DPR
18 STR + GWM: 32.81 DPR
20 STR + GWM: 37.95 DPR

[Person_Man]

I am slightly puzzled by people talking as though maximizing your primary stat is top tier ruthless optimization; it usually isn't the most powerful option on the table. What it is a pretty good, pretty obvious option that makes your character better without making them.

A lot can vary depending on the build. But in general, every round you get an Action, a Bonus Action, and maybe a Reaction. If you already have a reliable and effective way to use each of those most rounds, then you’re probably better off maximizing their effectiveness through higher Ability Scores. If you don’t, then its not as helpful to take more Feats to add more options, so that your Bonus Action and Reaction are not wasted.

For low level melee builds, you’re right that it makes sense to take a Feat or two as soon as possible so that you can reliably use your Bonus Action and trigger your Reaction more often. But for a caster who stays away from the front line, just casting the most effective spell possible (or a Cantrip + Bonus Action spell) might be better.

[Eldariel]

A 16 is fine from lower to mid levels, but from mid to high levels it hurts you. Your proficiency still increases, but the bad guys also get a proficiency increase and their prime is going up. You're falling behind. You may not notice it in an instance of a round, but over time it makes a difference. Getting the 18 at 8th level matters, because next level is the proficiency jump. Having both is a +2 difference from where you were at 7th level. That adds up as the encounters happen. You can afford the feat at 4th level to stay at 16 if you really want that feat. The 18 at 4th level gives you a bit of a math edge then take the feat at 8th level. The 20 can wait. Obviously it helps going 18 at 4th level and 20 at 8th level, but not having the 20 doesn't hurt you. A 20 can wait until 12th level, even 16th. An 18 works well enough between levels 8 and 15 as the 16 did between 1 and 7.

I won't say you're the Absolute Suck only having a 16 forever levels 1 to 20. I'll take for granted not increasing the 16 means you diversified yourself a bit such that you're contributing well enough in the sum of your variety of things to do, but I'll notice as your hypothetical party member you'll miss the attack roll and the monster makes his saving throw more than me who does have the 18 or 20.

This really doesn't hold up to mathematical scrutiny. The absolute number of extra successes is 5% regardless of whether we are speaking of going from 16-18 or 18-20 on 4, 8, 12, 16, or 19. Every time you skip an ASI you lose some hit chance but gain something else. The key difference is whether that is worth the ASI. For example, take a Wizard; on level 9 Wizard unlocks Wall of Force. Your spell loadout could very reasonably look like this:
Wall of Force
Polymorph
Summon Greater Demon
Hypnotic Pattern
Fly
Counterspell
Sleet Storm
Misty Step
Web
Shield
Mage Armor
Absorb Elements

Of these, spells that care about your casting stat are:

Summon Greater Demon
Counterspell
Hypnotic Pattern
Web
Polymorph (offensively, a decidedly secondary use)

Of those, Summon Greater Demon isn't really a problem since it sticks around attacking nearest targets for 1d6 rounds after losing Concentration so it's a great encounter bomb regardless of whether you keep Concentrating or not. So it's 3 spells. Now, granted, they're fairly big spells for you; you'll use them a fair bit. Still, you've also got a bunch of great spells that don't care about your casting stats. You'll often get by casting those.

So what's the value of increased Int here? Definitely not in the neighbourhood of "I need it to stay relevant". Indeed, you'll largely be fine unless all enemies make their saves vs. your AOE save-or-X, which is highly unlikely for fights where you'd use those spells. The biggest pain is Counterspell, but on that front you've got a fair chance of it being a level 3- spell that's being countered and when not, the feat you could take instead of +Int could easily be Lucky, which would give a significantly larger improvement on the Counterspell check.


Overall, it's an illusion that you'd need a casting stat (or any stat) improvement on any given level. As long as you're smart about which spell to use in a given situation, a caster gets by with the save DC being sort of secondary. A 16 Int Wizard can really be played up to level 20; while it's questionable whether those 5th and 6th feats are worth as much as +2 casting stat, being 16 Int in and of itself doesn't disqualify you from being a top contributor in a high optimisation party. That's possible by virtue of Wizard spell list being great regardless of your casting stat. And 16 is still respectable; it's a -2 difference compared to 20 but it still means you've got DC17 on Tier 4 and DC15-16 on Tier 3, which is fine; worst save on e.g. the Behir we talked about in the other thread is -2 and even their easy-to-target save is just +1 so you've got plenty good of making it fail even if you don't have quite maxed DC.

And, the key thing, you probably got something pretty good for it. Like you wouldn't take a feat unless you really wanted that feat. Top 4 feats for a Wizard would likely be Alert/Lucky/Res: Con/Metamagic Adept in about that order. Arguably Devil's Sight for some parties. In other words, it's not one-sided. You'll fail a save-or-X spell once or twice because of the stat difference. It happens. You'll on the other hand save the party occasionally because you can't be surprised or your Counterspells have an invisible +5 on them or your Concentration is highly unlikely to be broken and you can tank Con-save effects or you can Extend some spells on the day before a big dungeon delve, and then nova with Quicken/counter with Subtle on a key turn.


Note: a similar principle applies to most spells, although the calculus there is a little different because of the fact that most spells don't add your modifier to the effect. Overall it's slightly less important for a caster to max the casting stat than for a martial to max the martial stat, even if you're using spells that do nothing if they miss. That said, having a weaker Save DC requires carefully collecting spells that can target creatures' weak saves. 16 Int vs 20 Int is technically only a 10% difference, linearly, but let's put that into perspective: Against a creature with a +4 save, a DC 17 spell lands 60% of the time. If the spell is DC 15, it lands 50% of the time. That means, over the course of the adventure, the spell will land 20% more often if you have the higher Save DC. That might still be acceptable to you, but against a +9 save, a DC 17 spell lands 35% of the time, while DC 15 lands 25% of the time. In that case, the higher Save DC would make your spell land 40% more often!

While true, you should basically never cast a spell with only 35% chance of landing unless you're a Diviner/similar with the ability to make it 100%. So the spells you'll actually use will tend towards the lower end where the difference is lesser; of course, it's amplified whenever you hit multiple targets, which should be relatively often.


A lot can vary depending on the build. But in general, every round you get an Action, a Bonus Action, and maybe a Reaction. If you already have a reliable and effective way to use each of those most rounds, then you’re probably better off maximizing their effectiveness through higher Ability Scores. If you don’t, then its not as helpful to take more Feats to add more options, so that your Bonus Action and Reaction are not wasted.

For low level melee builds, you’re right that it makes sense to take a Feat or two as soon as possible so that you can reliably use your Bonus Action and trigger your Reaction more often. But for a caster who stays away from the front line, just casting the most effective spell possible (or a Cantrip + Bonus Action spell) might be better.

Really depends on what you cast. For a Cleric, fair enough. For a Wizard? Really depends. Note that even if you have good use for all 3 of your actions, feats can give you stuff like action reliability (Lucky gives way more for Dispel/Counterspell than +2 Int) or "free action surge" (Alert can amount to two extra turns if it prevents surprise and then helps you win Initiative, which is comparable to getting threeish Action Surges due to also getting those bonus actions, reactions, and moves from those turns) or effect reliability (anything that improves your Concentration) or just plain valuable defenses (in addition to improving Concentration Res: Con does both, defensively improves Constitution saves and gives HP).

[OldTrees1]

Where did you heard that. Seems that since you can start with a 14 on any race, and often with a 16 at lvl 1, they expect you to boost it eventually, especially since most characters and playera will want that.

I heard it when the game devs talked about bounded accuracy philosophy. It was long enough ago I don't have a direct source.

They might expect you to boost it eventually, but bounded accuracy philosophy included the game devs not assuming you would boost it ever when they are tuning the difficulty. Not even from 14 -> 16 at level 1.

Boosting it will buff your character (see Dark Revenant's great post), but the base difficulty of 5E does not presume you will boost it.



Level 16 (vs AC 18) and Level 19 (vs AC 19)
14 STR: 21.13 DPR
20 STR: 31.63 DPR


So while boosting it from 14 -> 20 is a 50% increase in DPR, the game devs did not assume that when designing the base difficulty. This is one reason 5E can feel easier.

[Willie the Duck]

So what will you do with those feats?

The same as usual: They won't matter until they do. You'll be kicking yourself if the target rolled exactly on the DC to pass the save.
Pretty much this. Of course you will run into cases where you'll miss by one, and regret not doing so, but it's always going to depend on the opportunity cost.
Mind you, compared to an ASI in a non-key stat (even something like Con or Dex), a +2 to your key stat is usually going to win*. However, if you could instead spend an ASI to do something you otherwise couldn't (or couldn't reliably, such as be a front-line concentrating caster without War Caster, or similar), man I usually think the later choice will have more of an impact on your character (not just their success ratio, but in what you will decide to do with them).
*mechanically, that is. Doing something for flavor reasons is a different discussion I'm assuming we are not having atm.

As an example, if I have a known-spells caster (bard, sorcerer, ranger, etc.), I'd be hard-pressed to pick up the +2 Cha or Wis instead of half feats like shadow- or fey- touched, simply because the extra spells to choose from will enhance what I can do with my character. This is true even if that means I will be stuck with an odd stat for most of the character career. If that character is a bard or something, even after I've picked up both of those half-feats and now have an 18 cha, I'd likely grab War Caster, Inspiring Leader, Moderately Armored (if Lore bard), or resilient:Wis or Con before capping off the charisma, simply because I think it will have more of an impact on the character and/or party.


Though i'm the type who generally find 18 in my main stat to be enough.
Personally, I'm fine with a 16 all the way through (excepting monks or light-armored dex characters or something). I figure getting up to 16 at start is no longer challenging (and the only opportunity cost is some oddball build like a 16 str 14 wis war cleric, or other thing where you hopefully know what you are doing choosing it) so that's the threshold I shoot for. Anything after that is gravy.

[GooeyChewie]

I agree with those who have pointed out that it depends on what everybody else at your table does. In the end, it doesn't matter if everybody has a +3 or a +5. The DM can lay out the adventure according to the power level of the party as a whole. But if one player has +3 while another has +5 while facing the same encounters, you'll start to notice a difference.


At level one, you usually want to start with your key stat as high as possible. With point buy or the standard array, you can have at most a +3 modifier. (Pre-Tasha's, I believe Changelings could exceptionally start with a +4 Charisma.) The standard wisdom is that you generally want to boost your key stat to a +5 as soon as possible.

Post-Tasha's, with custom lineage and a feat which boosts the same ability score where you put the +2, you can start with an 18 (+4).


I am slightly puzzled by people talking as though maximizing your primary stat is top tier ruthless optimization; it usually isn't the most powerful option on the table.
I wouldn't call it "top tier ruthless optimization." More "route one obvious improvement." You're right that a ruthless optimizer will likely find a more powerful option than the ability score improvement. At the same time, the character who takes the ability score improvement is more optimized than, say, the Wizard who took the Chef feat because cooking is fun.

[MaxWilson]

I agree with those who have pointed out that it depends on what everybody else at your table does. In the end, it doesn't matter if everybody has a +3 or a +5. The DM can lay out the adventure according to the power level of the party as a whole. But if one player has +3 while another has +5 while facing the same encounters, you'll start to notice a difference.

...and it might be a difference in favor of the guy with +3, if he spent his ASIs on something better than a stat boost.

It depends. One example though: a Wis 20 Shepherd Druid 11 in the same party with a Wis 16 Resilient(Con) Lucky Shepherd Druid 11. The Wis 20 guy is better at Planar Binding during downtime, has two extra spells prepared, and is better at landing Blight/Erupting Earth spells to support his minions, but he's a lot more prone to losing those minions to damage or status effects like paralyzation. IME the feats in this case are stronger than the ASI.

[Anymage]

There's a difference between sinking your level 4 ASI into a feat (which will likely be more impactful than +2 to your core stat) and sinking all your ASIs into feats or nonprimary stats. The former is often a good idea, because a key feat can often be character defining. The latter becomes questionable because there are rarely 5 feats that are all better than improving your core stat.

An 18 or even a 16 is serviceable, oftentimes justifiable, in tier 2. Tier four, I'm more skeptical.

[Pex]

This really doesn't hold up to mathematical scrutiny. The absolute number of extra successes is 5% regardless of whether we are speaking of going from 16-18 or 18-20 on 4, 8, 12, 16, or 19. Every time you skip an ASI you lose some hit chance but gain something else. The key difference is whether that is worth the ASI. For example, take a Wizard; on level 9 Wizard unlocks Wall of Force. Your spell loadout could very reasonably look like this:
Wall of Force
Polymorph
Summon Greater Demon
Hypnotic Pattern
Fly
Counterspell
Sleet Storm
Misty Step
Web
Shield
Mage Armor
Absorb Elements

Of these, spells that care about your casting stat are:

Summon Greater Demon
Counterspell
Hypnotic Pattern
Web
Polymorph (offensively, a decidedly secondary use)

Of those, Summon Greater Demon isn't really a problem since it sticks around attacking nearest targets for 1d6 rounds after losing Concentration so it's a great encounter bomb regardless of whether you keep Concentrating or not. So it's 3 spells. Now, granted, they're fairly big spells for you; you'll use them a fair bit. Still, you've also got a bunch of great spells that don't care about your casting stats. You'll often get by casting those.

So what's the value of increased Int here? Definitely not in the neighbourhood of "I need it to stay relevant". Indeed, you'll largely be fine unless all enemies make their saves vs. your AOE save-or-X, which is highly unlikely for fights where you'd use those spells. The biggest pain is Counterspell, but on that front you've got a fair chance of it being a level 3- spell that's being countered and when not, the feat you could take instead of +Int could easily be Lucky, which would give a significantly larger improvement on the Counterspell check.


Overall, it's an illusion that you'd need a casting stat (or any stat) improvement on any given level. As long as you're smart about which spell to use in a given situation, a caster gets by with the save DC being sort of secondary. A 16 Int Wizard can really be played up to level 20; while it's questionable whether those 5th and 6th feats are worth as much as +2 casting stat, being 16 Int in and of itself doesn't disqualify you from being a top contributor in a high optimisation party. That's possible by virtue of Wizard spell list being great regardless of your casting stat. And 16 is still respectable; it's a -2 difference compared to 20 but it still means you've got DC17 on Tier 4 and DC15-16 on Tier 3, which is fine; worst save on e.g. the Behir we talked about in the other thread is -2 and even their easy-to-target save is just +1 so you've got plenty good of making it fail even if you don't have quite maxed DC.

And, the key thing, you probably got something pretty good for it. Like you wouldn't take a feat unless you really wanted that feat. Top 4 feats for a Wizard would likely be Alert/Lucky/Res: Con/Metamagic Adept in about that order. Arguably Devil's Sight for some parties. In other words, it's not one-sided. You'll fail a save-or-X spell once or twice because of the stat difference. It happens. You'll on the other hand save the party occasionally because you can't be surprised or your Counterspells have an invisible +5 on them or your Concentration is highly unlikely to be broken and you can tank Con-save effects or you can Extend some spells on the day before a big dungeon delve, and then nova with Quicken/counter with Subtle on a key turn.



I see it in play. Those who don't increase their prime fail more often than those who do. It is more noticeable when they don't even have the 16. A spellcaster certainly can cast buff spells only and not worry while still contributing. Because of concentration they are limited in how they can buff, so what else are they doing? Damage Cantrips are fine and dandy, but you still have to hit or the monster fails the saving throw. That's where they are failing despite their buff spell being a very important so glad they're doing it contribution. As a warrior it's all about hitting. They need, must hit to do their thing. Every +1 matters. They have leeway. They can afford to spend a feat or two, but that 5-10% less chance to hit staying at 16 forever accumulates. It will mean the bad guy stays up one more round which can make all the difference.

[Eldariel]

I see it in play. Those who don't increase their prime fail more often than those who do. It is more noticeable when they don't even have the 16. A spellcaster certainly can cast buff spells only and not worry while still contributing. Because of concentration they are limited in how they can buff, so what else are they doing? Damage Cantrips are fine and dandy, but you still have to hit or the monster fails the saving throw. That's where they are failing despite their buff spell being a very important so glad they're doing it contribution. As a warrior it's all about hitting. They need, must hit to do their thing. Every +1 matters. They have leeway. They can afford to spend a feat or two, but that 5-10% less chance to hit staying at 16 forever accumulates. It will mean the bad guy stays up one more round which can make all the difference.

It can matter. So can the feat. It of course reduces down to which matters more in a given campaign, to which the answer is not at all clear.

[bid]

This really doesn't hold up to mathematical scrutiny. The absolute number of extra successes is 5% regardless of whether we are speaking of going from 16-18 or 18-20 on 4, 8, 12, 16, or 19.
Which is a meaningless number.

Taking an extreme example: if your Str16 demands you roll 20 to hit, your Str20 pal will do 200% more damage with his mere 10% extra hits.

[Dork_Forge]

It really depends on what class and subclass you are. Some rely on a certain stat for the number of times you can use an ability, some depend on it for number of spells prepared, sometimes that key stat overlaps with a lot of auxiliary areas like skills. The Rogue that doesn't go past 16 isn't just not hitting as much, they're getting lower initiative scores and stealth results etc.

The Wizard that forgoes bumping Int to load up on feats may regret that choice when they try and use a higher level scroll and it fails by 1 or 2.

Could you still have fun? Certainly and to a lot of people that lost efficiency may not matter, to others they'll feel it every time they fail by that 1 or 2 points, or are missing that one spell they couldn't fit into the day's load out etc.

Personally I think not maxing a stat depends heavily on what you're playing, but I'd always advise going to at least an 18 within levels 1-8.

[Angelalex242]

I think it's actually Paladins who need their 20 charisma the most.

Because a Paladin isn't just affecting himself. He's affecting his allies just by standing next to them. His ability to affect everyone makes his 20 charisma necessary.

What about strength? Meh, gauntlets and belts for that.

[Eldariel]

Which is a meaningless number.

Taking an extreme example: if your Str16 demands you roll 20 to hit, your Str20 pal will do 200% more damage with his mere 10% extra hits.

Not meaningless, just not entirely accurate. I'm fully aware of the fact that the value of the 5pp increase changes depending on target numbers but largely, given a bounded accuracy system it'll remain broadly similar over the leveling range. That is to say, each +1 will generally have a lesser impact than the last one; going from 10 to 12 is worth more than going from 12 to 14, which is worth more than going from 14 to 16, which worth more than going from 16 to 18, which is worth more than going from 18 to 20. Offensively anyways. AC works the opposite way; the higher the AC, the more value each point gives since it affects the target number.

However, that doesn't change overtly much 1-20. Whether you take the 18/20 on 4, 8, 12, 16, 19, you're getting a broadly similar amount of value out of it offensively speaking. Saves are a bit strange in that there's a lot more variance in them than AC and you're able to target weak saves if you wish, so vs. some enemies you'll get a bit less on higher levels (due to proficiency) while vs. others (particularly Outsiders and Dragons with their strong saves across the board) you get a fair bit since there's no extremely weak point to hit. In other words, vs. a group of opponents the value of the +1 actually decreases over levels while against others it increases. Of course, on high levels you're less incentivised to use spells with saving throws which does decreases the value of the bonus.


Summa summarum, on many casters you get a broadly similar amount of value of the casting ASI on every level. Its exact value is complex to determine and there are a lot of campaign dependent variables too, but certainly it is reasonable to play a caster with 16 in casting stat if what you're getting instead is good enough (and again, casters that use their casting stat a lot like Warlocks and Clerics are more incentivised to boost it early of course).

[Willie the Duck]

I think it's actually Paladins who need their 20 charisma the most.

Because a Paladin isn't just affecting himself. He's affecting his allies just by standing next to them. His ability to affect everyone makes his 20 charisma necessary.

What about strength? Meh, gauntlets and belts for that.

Gauntlets and belts and similar throw a spanner into the works for these conversations (not least of which because whether one can build your character around the expectation that you will get some is going to be very campaign/DM-dependent).

With regard to Paladins, I've always felt the aura issue is overblown. For most of their post-level-5 adventuring career (again, campaign-dependent), the radius is 10'. While a nice bonus, if the party has to completely rebuild their combat strategy to stay close to the Pally (and suffer the negatives of bunching up), then that bonus has a high opportunity cost.

To me, the characters who need the ASIs in stats the most are characters like front-line rogues (who have moderately good ACs which approach what the GWM/STR-based fighter has only once they have a 20 Dex to add 5 to the studded leather's 2) and monks (who have so many different effects -- from AC to to-hit to save DCs-- that key of Dex or Wis).

[MaxWilson]

With regard to Paladins, I've always felt the aura issue is overblown. For most of their post-level-5 adventuring career (again, campaign-dependent), the radius is 10'. While a nice bonus, if the party has to completely rebuild their combat strategy to stay close to the Pally (and suffer the negatives of bunching up), then that bonus has a high opportunity cost.


Yes it does, and it shouldn't be used constantly, but it's still the Paladin's big unique contribution--and when you do suffer those negatives, you want to maximize your return.

Besides, a +5 protection aura enables some fun extra tactics like having the wizard Polymorph himself into a T Rex for the Paladin to ride. Normally self-Polymorph is risky, but with +9 to Con saves instead of only +4 it's fairly reliable.

[da newt]

I don't know how you would quantify it statistically, but I'm willing to bet that a full caster who takes Alert or Lucky with their first ASI will be more effective over lvls 4-12 than one who takes +2 casting stat. 3 re-rolls per day or a +5 to initiative and unsurprisable ought to have a greater overall affect than +1 to attack/DC ...

I mean IF we assume 2 of 3 times you burn a Lucky it's successful, then you'd have to have ~40 D20 rolls / day for the +1 to also change two rolls successfully, right?

[Avonar]

Man for something like this, put numbers aside.

If you choose not to raise your main stat, you're doing something else. Are you boosting a different stat? Taking a feat?

If you are genuinely happy to take something else instead then do it. You will be less effective at combat things but you will have more fun overall because you're doing what you want, not what everyone says you should. And that's the only thing that matters.

[Eldariel]

If you are genuinely happy to take something else instead then do it. You will be less effective at combat things...

What makes you say that? Plenty of feats can make you more effective in combat at many junctures than a stat increase in the primary offensive stat.

[OldTrees1]

With regard to Paladins, I've always felt the aura issue is overblown. For most of their post-level-5 adventuring career (again, campaign-dependent), the radius is 10'. While a nice bonus, if the party has to completely rebuild their combat strategy to stay close to the Pally (and suffer the negatives of bunching up), then that bonus has a high opportunity cost.

A 10ft radius from a 5ft creature is 25ft diameter. That is a really large area indoors and still a sizable area outside. So if the party focus fires in melee, then they already have a combat style that is compatible with the 10ft radius.

As for the negatives of bunching up. Ancients Paladins pray for Fireball. If the party is in "fireball formation" they are prime targets for a fireball. Until the enemy realizes the damage was quartered. Then a "Fireball" seems like a wasted enemy action. Hence why Ancients Paladins pray for Fireball.

The auras are good enough that you could specialize in them.


BUT, yes the aura issue is frequently overblown.

[MaxWilson]

A 10ft radius from a 5ft creature is 25ft diameter.

Except when it's 20' in diameter. Ask your DM.


As for the negatives of bunching up. Ancients Paladins pray for Fireball. If the party is in "fireball formation" they are prime targets for a fireball. Until the enemy realizes the damage was quartered. Then a "Fireball" seems like a wasted enemy action. Hence why Ancients Paladins pray for Fireball.

Off-topic, but...

Yep, Ancient Paladins pray that what hits them is a Fireball (8d6 (28), halved for resistance) and not e.g. the breath weapon of a CR 6 Young White Dragon (10d8 (45), no resistance), or a Storm Giant's lightning strike (12d8 (54), no resistance), or a Star Spawn Seer's Warp Reality (6d12 (39), no resistance), or even a Magma Mephit's fire breath (2d6 (7), no resistance) multiplied by a dozen mephits.

BTW, a dozen Magma Mephits is only a Medium encounter for a 7th level party of four PCs. In theory you're supposed to be able to handle 6.67 of those encounters per day. Sure hope you're not in Fireball Formation when it happens...

In other words, Ancient Paladins help you against some weak AoEs but do nothing against the most common and damaging types of AoEs in the MM: non-spell-based monster abilities. Nor do they do anything special about the most damaging types of spells (crowd control, especially charm and paralyzation in that order).

Conclusion: Ancient Paladins are lame. Devotion is better from both RP and mechanical angles.

[icefractal]

Which is a meaningless number.

Taking an extreme example: if your Str16 demands you roll 20 to hit, your Str20 pal will do 200% more damage with his mere 10% extra hits.I don't think it's meaningless - it measures how often, in terms of times you roll the d20, the higher stat will make a difference. That correlates moderately with real-time spent playing, so I'd argue it's often the more relevant number, and your example above shows why.

Ok, the Str 20 guy is twice as a good as the Str 16 guy, right? Well, maybe if he's standing there alone attacking a monster that can't fight back, and the amount of time that takes is important. But in a normal fight? If you're hitting only 5% or 15% of the time, you're mostly a non-factor in the fight, which will either:
A) Be decided by other party members defeating the foe, during which time you'll hit probably 0 - 1 times.
B) Be decided by a TPK / full retreat, as the nigh-unhittable monster kicks all your asses.
Foes don't generally just stand there and let you swing at them 20+ times. :smalltongue:

[Angelalex242]

Except when it's 20' in diameter. Ask your DM.



Off-topic, but...

Yep, Ancient Paladins pray that what hits them is a Fireball (8d6 (28), halved for resistance) and not e.g. the breath weapon of a CR 6 Young White Dragon (10d8 (45), no resistance), or a Storm Giant's lightning strike (12d8 (54), no resistance), or a Star Spawn Seer's Warp Reality (6d12 (39), no resistance), or even a Magma Mephit's fire breath (2d6 (7), no resistance) multiplied by a dozen mephits.

BTW, a dozen Magma Mephits is only a Medium encounter for a 7th level party of four PCs. In theory you're supposed to be able to handle 6.67 of those encounters per day. Sure hope you're not in Fireball Formation when it happens...

In other words, Ancient Paladins help you against some weak AoEs but do nothing against the most common and damaging types of AoEs in the MM: non-spell-based monster abilities. Nor do they do anything special about the most damaging types of spells (crowd control, especially charm and paralyzation in that order).

Conclusion: Ancient Paladins are lame. Devotion is better from both RP and mechanical angles.

It is more accurate to say, "Ancients Paladins are optimized for human opposition."

All of your examples of non spell AOE damage come from MONSTERS. Human/demihuman/whatever type enemies must rely on spells, just like the PCs.

[MaxWilson]

It is more accurate to say, "Ancients Paladins are optimized for human opposition."

All of your examples of non spell AOE damage come from MONSTERS. Human/demihuman/whatever type enemies must rely on spells, just like the PCs.

Even then it's not really true. Humans druids and wizards can summon Magma Mephits and fire elementals, etc. They don't have to rely on evocations.

[Angelalex242]

There's entire threads about the virtues and flaws of summons vs. evocations...so we'll leave it at that.

[Dark.Revenant]

Reasons to increase your main stat:
1. (Major) It increases the number of times you can use an ability-scaling feature, such as Bardic Inspiration. (Typical: 20-50% more uses)
2. (Major) It increases an ability-scaling number that is applied directly with no bias, such as Aura of Protection. (Typical: 20-50% more effectiveness)
3. It boosts ability checks, saving throws, or attack rolls that you want to make more consistently. (Typical: 5-15% more successful attempts)
4. It boosts your damage per hit. (Typical: 5-15% more damage per hit)
5. It boosts a save DC that you want enemies to fail more consistently. (Typical: 5-15% more failed saves)
6. It increases secondary stats that you rely on, such as HP, AC, or initiative. (Typical: 5-15% tougher, harder to hit, more likely to go first, etc.)
7. It boosts some other kind of ability-scaling modifier from a class feature or spell that's added onto a die or static number. (Typical: 5-15% more effectiveness)
8. It boosts the number of spells you can prepare. (Typical: 5-15% more spells prepared)
9. It boosts a passive stat, such as Passive Perception. (Typical: 5-10% higher target number)

The more of these that matter to you, the more heavily you should consider raising your main stat.


For example, raising STR to 18 from 16, versus taking GWM...

The STR boost will increase chance to hit by some ~8%, damage per hit by some ~10%, total DPR by some ~20%, your ability to land athletics checks by some ~10%, the amount you can carry by 12.5%, your likelihood to pass strength saves by some ~10%, and possibly some other benefits as well.

The GWM feat will passively increase your DPR by about 5-10% because of the crit/cleave benefit, and offers a trade of about -40% chance to hit for ~100% more damage, for an overall DPR increase of ~30% in the typical situation.

If all you care about is damage, go for GWM in that situation. If you care about all those secondary benefits enough to trade away the extra 10% damage, go for STR.

[Tanarii]

I don't know who, but someone once made an analysis of enemy stats. You're supposed to have 18 at level 12 to avoid falling behind, and having 20 at all puts you above the curve. So it's not 10%, it's 5%.
I've done that math several times, and it's based on the DMG CR table and an assumption that generally speaking you're expecting enemy CRs of 3 steps lower than average party level (or CR=level-3 when level 4 or higher). It does mean you'll be facing a challenge (primary stat-wise) in those occasional tougher fights against CR=level or higher though.

I've pretty sure I've seen another poster do the same with an assumption of CR= party level/2. That might have just been a statement of design assumption though, not mathing it out.

[TaiLiu]

Thanks for responding, everyone! There's a lot of posts, so I'm not able to respond to them individually, but I appreciate them all. :smallsmile:

My wild magic sorcerer is a drow elf and the main arcanist in the group, and we play Gritty. So instead of picking up an additional Charisma modifier at level 4, I picked up Drow High Magic instead. I think it's worth it for unlimited detect magic and bonus dispel magic, and I was wondering if I could maybe pick up another feat instead of a Charisma bonus at level 8.

I'm getting the sense that it's okay, but there are (small-ish?) consequences, and certain builds work better when you never bump up your +3. The group isn't too optimized, and combats are far and few: but when they happen, they're tough and critical. So it's tough to balance combat spells with utility spells, and when the combat spells happen, I'm worried about letting the rest of the group down with my subpar spell DCs. But it's good to know that it's totally doable with just a +3.

Anyway, thanks again! Will continue reading your posts as they come in.

[MaxWilson]

Thanks for responding, everyone! There's a lot of posts, so I'm not able to respond to them individually, but I appreciate them all. :smallsmile:

My wild magic sorcerer is a drow elf and the main arcanist in the group, and we play Gritty. So instead of picking up an additional Charisma modifier at level 4, I picked up Drow High Magic instead. I think it's worth it for unlimited detect magic and bonus dispel magic, and I was wondering if I could maybe pick up another feat instead of a Charisma bonus at level 8.

I'm getting the sense that it's okay, but there are (small-ish?) consequences, and certain builds work better when you never bump up your +3. The group isn't too optimized, and combats are far and few: but when they happen, they're tough and critical. So it's tough to balance combat spells with utility spells, and when the combat spells happen, I'm worried about letting the rest of the group down with my subpar spell DCs. But it's good to know that it's totally doable with just a +3.

Anyway, thanks again! Will continue reading your posts as they come in.

In general I would say that Drow High Magic is not a feat that is better than +Cha for a wild magic sorcerer (how often do you really use up all your spell slots in a day anyway?), although fortunately Bend Luck can help compensate for your lower DCs so you've got some extra wiggle room.

If you're going to pick up another feat instead of Cha, I'd recommend a high-impact feat like Inspiring Leader.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I've done that math several times, and it's based on the DMG CR table and an assumption that generally speaking you're expecting enemy CRs of 3 steps lower than average party level (or CR=level-3 when level 4 or higher). It does mean you'll be facing a challenge (primary stat-wise) in those occasional tougher fights against CR=level or higher though.

I've pretty sure I've seen another poster do the same with an assumption of CR= party level/2. That might have just been a statement of design assumption though, not mathing it out.

Comparing AC as a function of CR[1] to attack bonus, and assuming that the game is designed around having a 60-70% hit rate (not including advantage/disadvantage, WAG, but makes sense with other assumptions), we get the following pattern:



ATK
Highest CR you've got at least a 60% chance to hit


4
1/2


5
2


6
5


7
8


8
12


9
14...and 20


10
17...and 20


11[2]
21...and 23


12
24[3]


13[4]
24



To be "comfortable" attacking a tarrasque (ie to have a 60% hit rate), you'd need to have an attack bonus of +16, which means a level 20 barbarian with a +3 weapon or something like a stack of bardic inspiration and bless (or comparable effects). Advantage skews these numbers, so barbarians (or anyone who can reliably get advantage on attacks) do better than these pessimistic assumptions. But since I'm going for a baseline here...

Take from that what you will. Following Xanathar's guidance, the weighted average CR for a group encounter (ie non-solo) at level 20 should be somewhere around 10 (9-11). But at lower levels, it's not strictly level/2--the expected value of CR increases significantly slower than levels increase.

I do find it interesting that CR 20 is a (strong) outlier--I suspect that CR 20 monsters are considered "bosses" for groups in the T3/strong T2 (ie optimized) range. +9/+10 ATK is doable fairly easily at that point, especially with magic items.

Edit: if you started with a +3 main stat and kept it there, you'd feel a bit of a bite in the following cases:


Level band
CR of monsters you regularly face is >=


1-4
3


5-8
6


9-11
8-9


12-15
13


16-20
15+



So if you're normally facing CR = level - 2 or level - 3 or lower, you'll feel a couple pinches at very high levels. That's about it. If you're routinely facing CR = level or worse, you'll feel pinches real soon now.

Side note: Except the tarrasque, there is no CR at which the average AC is "unhittable" (ie requires a 20 to hit) unless your attack stat is negative or you don't have proficiency. The lowest it goes is a +2 ATK vs CR 24 (AC 21), for a 10% chance to hit. On the other hand, someone with +11 hits on a 2 for all (averaged) CR below 1 and a +13 hits on all (averaged) CR below 6.

Second side note: the spread in AC here is reasonably large. The average standard deviation (a crappy measure, but can't be bothered to do better right now) is ~1.7, but the range is from 2.7 (CR 12, due to the archmage) to 0.6 (CR 15, which has a bunch of AC-identical dragons and such). And the averaged ACs are not monotonic with CR, as CR 20 has the same average AC as CRs 14-16 and lower than CR 17-19. There are a few other places (CRs 4, 8, 11-13) where it bobbles, but the differences there are much smaller (ie roughly 0.2 AC or smaller).

[1] calculated as the mean of all monsters with that CR from the "big three" monster books.
[2] the highest you can get unless you either have +X weapons and/or are a level 20 barbarian with 18+ base strength (before the capstone)
[3] There are no monsters in those books from CR 25-30. Hence why it plateaus here.
[4] highest you can get without magic items (ie are a level 20 barbarian with 24 STR).

[Addaran]

Thanks for responding, everyone! There's a lot of posts, so I'm not able to respond to them individually, but I appreciate them all. :smallsmile:

My wild magic sorcerer is a drow elf and the main arcanist in the group, and we play Gritty. So instead of picking up an additional Charisma modifier at level 4, I picked up Drow High Magic instead. I think it's worth it for unlimited detect magic and bonus dispel magic, and I was wondering if I could maybe pick up another feat instead of a Charisma bonus at level 8.

I'm getting the sense that it's okay, but there are (small-ish?) consequences, and certain builds work better when you never bump up your +3. The group isn't too optimized, and combats are far and few: but when they happen, they're tough and critical. So it's tough to balance combat spells with utility spells, and when the combat spells happen, I'm worried about letting the rest of the group down with my subpar spell DCs. But it's good to know that it's totally doable with just a +3.

Anyway, thanks again! Will continue reading your posts as they come in.

I think drow high magic is an awesome feat to pick. 3 more spell known, one at will and the equivalent of two spell slots ( more limited though).

Being a sorcerer, you already have prof con saves so one less feat needed. You can always pick another feat at 8 if something sounds good/fun. But i'd suggest raising cha for lvl 12 at least.

[Ogre Mage]

My experience is primarily with playing casters. As others have said, if your character is primarily a buffer or summoner, leaving your main stat at 16 is probably fine. Lucky and Resilient (Con) are probably more useful to make sure your buffs/summoned creatures stay up.

But if I was playing an evoker or enchanter, I would never, ever leave my main stat at 16.

[TaiLiu]

In general I would say that Drow High Magic is not a feat that is better than +Cha for a wild magic sorcerer (how often do you really use up all your spell slots in a day anyway?), although fortunately Bend Luck can help compensate for your lower DCs so you've got some extra wiggle room.

If you're going to pick up another feat instead of Cha, I'd recommend a high-impact feat like Inspiring Leader.
Appreciate this build advice! Could you say a little more about how Drow High Magic is a mediocre pick? I confess that I was really taken in by the at-will detect magic: I don't have room to pick it up, it seems really useful for information gathering, and it can trigger a wild magic surge without expending any spell slots.


I think drow high magic is an awesome feat to pick. 3 more spell known, one at will and the equivalent of two spell slots ( more limited though).

Being a sorcerer, you already have prof con saves so one less feat needed. You can always pick another feat at 8 if something sounds good/fun. But i'd suggest raising cha for lvl 12 at least.
Yes, I'm especially excited, perhaps unreasonably, for the free dispel magic. And good to know! I'm not sure we'll reach level 12, so maybe I'll just take the Charisma boost at level 8, then.


My experience is primarily with playing casters. As others have said, if your character is primarily a buffer or summoner, leaving your main stat at 16 is probably fine. Lucky and Resilient (Con) are probably more useful to make sure your buffs/summoned creatures stay up.

But if I was playing an evoker or enchanter, I would never, ever leave my main stat at 16.
Gotcha! Yeah, my big fear is that my big abjuration spells, dispel and counterspell, will be seriously affected by my lesser Charisma. So maybe I'll bump it up soon.

[Ogre Mage]

Gotcha! Yeah, my big fear is that my big abjuration spells, dispel and counterspell, will be seriously affected by my lesser Charisma. So maybe I'll bump it up soon.

If your sorcerer is abjuration-heavy that is somewhat of a middle ground, kind of like being a generalist caster. In such cases, I personally would raise my Charisma to at least an 18. Going all the way to 20 would be good but perhaps not essential. Whereas if you were evocation or enchantment focused I would say it is essential to raise Charisma to 20.

[Addaran]

Yes, I'm especially excited, perhaps unreasonably, for the free dispel magic. And good to know! I'm not sure we'll reach level 12, so maybe I'll just take the Charisma boost at level 8, then.


If you never reach 12, it's a lot less bad to never go above 16, compared if you actually go till 20.

Still a good option to go to 18 cha ( especially if you want dispel magic/counterspell) , but with only one feat so far, there is competitive/fun options for feats left.

[MaxWilson]

Appreciate this build advice! Could you say a little more about how Drow High Magic is a mediocre pick? I confess that I was really taken in by the at-will detect magic: I don't have room to pick it up, it seems really useful for information gathering, and it can trigger a wild magic surge without expending any spell slots.

Wild surge? Huh, that's an interesting usage. I guess I can see how that could make it high impact if you wind up triggering them a lot.

In general, Detect Magic is useful for information gathering, but it's also a ritual spell for a good reason: unless you're dungeon crawling and looking for traps (are you?), there's usually only a couple of places in an adventure at most where it could make a difference. But if Drow High Magic is being used to trigger wild surges several times an adventure AND recharge Tides if Chaos in the process then yeah, I can see how you're getting extra use out of it.

[Dork_Forge]

Wild surge? Huh, that's an interesting usage. I guess I can see how that could make it high impact if you wind up triggering them a lot.

In general, Detect Magic is useful for information gathering, but it's also a ritual spell for a good reason: unless you're dungeon crawling and looking for traps (are you?), there's usually only a couple of places in an adventure at most where it could make a difference. But if Drow High Magic is being used to trigger wild surges several times an adventure AND recharge Tides if Chaos in the process then yeah, I can see how you're getting extra use out of it.

Levitate and Dispel Magic are still strong additions to a caster's toolkit.

Alternate point of view on a feat like this:

-Sorcerers are so restricted in spells known, a lot of them don't bother with utility spells from their class

-The less slots you spent the more slots you can potentially covnert into SP to play with

[TaiLiu]

If your sorcerer is abjuration-heavy that is somewhat of a middle ground, kind of like being a generalist caster. In such cases, I personally would raise my Charisma to at least an 18. Going all the way to 20 would be good but perhaps not essential. Whereas if you were evocation or enchantment focused I would say it is essential to raise Charisma to 20.

If you never reach 12, it's a lot less bad to never go above 16, compared if you actually go till 20.

Still a good option to go to 18 cha ( especially if you want dispel magic/counterspell) , but with only one feat so far, there is competitive/fun options for feats left.
Makes sense! I'll probably bump Charisma to 18 at level 8, then.


Wild surge? Huh, that's an interesting usage. I guess I can see how that could make it high impact if you wind up triggering them a lot... But if Drow High Magic is being used to trigger wild surges several times an adventure AND recharge Tides if Chaos in the process then yeah, I can see how you're getting extra use out of it.
Good to know! Most of the effects are useful in combat only, but there are a number of effects that are beneficial or otherwise neutral outside of combat. Those are the ones I'm hoping to hit when casting detect magic.

In general, Detect Magic is useful for information gathering, but it's also a ritual spell for a good reason: unless you're dungeon crawling and looking for traps (are you?), there's usually only a couple of places in an adventure at most where it could make a difference.
That's true. My last character was a Wizard, and I found the ten minute casting time difficult for immersion. I'm hoping that at-will detect magic will let me have it up a lot more.