How important is a 17 in your primary stat?

[Boci]

Based in part on the recent flurry of discussions about races and stats brought on by the varient rules in Tasha, I was wondering, how important is it to have 17 in your primary stat at level 1? The obvious advantage over 16 is that at level 4 you can take a half feat and still have a +4 modifer. Elven Accuracy is an example of a feat good enough for this, the opportunity cost to have 17 vs. 16 is minimal, and super accuracy is pretty sweet.

What other half feats are worth putting 17 in your primary stat, and for which class?

Edit:

Noteworthy Half-Feats:

Elven Accuracy - Elf only, dexterity, intelligence, wisdom or charisma, any weapon wielding character. Pretty much the crowned champion of half-feats.

Dragon Fear - Dragonborn only, charisma, AoO controll independent of class, worth considering.

Resilience - No race restriction, any ability, constitution for casters and wisdom for martials are the big ones, but perhaps worth considering if your class doesn't give you a saving throw for your primary stat (eg. strength based rogue or dex based paladins)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Any others?

[LudicSavant]

Based in part on the recent flurry of discussions about races and stats brought on by the varient rules in Tasha, I was wondering, how important is it to have 17 in your primary stat at level 1? The obvious advantage over 16 is that at level 4 you can take a half feat and still have a +4 modifer. Elven Accuracy is an example of a feat good enough for this, the opportunity cost to have 17 vs. 16 is minimal, and super accuracy is pretty sweet.

What other half feats are worth putting 17 in your primary stat, and for which class?

16 is a large advantage over 14 or 15 -- I know you've already seen the math on that since I'm the one who showed it to you, so I'll skip it.

The advantage of 17 over 16 is the value of taking whatever the best available half feat for that stat for your build is relative to just taking a +2.

(Alternatively, it's worth a full ASI if you have 2 17s in two primary stats, such as 17 Wis / 17 Dex on a Monk, since you'd basically have your stats be at the same place at level 4 as most characters would be at level 8).

[PhoenixPhyre]

The game math assumes that you have

* +2 main stat
* positive secondary stats and CON.

at level 1. That's all.

You can probably get by with a +2 main stat up to nearly level 8 without too much real difficulty, going by the DMG's encounter curves.

This is why people complain it's too easy--they go way past the baseline and still use the baseline encounter math, even though it says not to.

So in a party where everyone else is optimizing, a 17 is necessary. In a different party, it's totally fine. The game scales to whatever the party is, only differences within your party really matter.

[Finney]

Based in part on the recent flurry of discussions about races and stats brought on by the varient rules in Tasha, I was wondering, how important is it to have 17 in your primary stat at level 1? The obvious advantage over 16 is that at level 4 you can take a half feat and still have a +4 modifer. Elven Accuracy is an example of a feat good enough for this, the opportunity cost to have 17 vs. 16 is minimal, and super accuracy is pretty sweet.

What other half feats are worth putting 17 in your primary stat, and for which class?

For dragonborn characters that play a charisma-based class, the Dragon Fear feat might be worthwhile - especially for a few of the less desirable draconic ancestries.

An AoE fear is a lot more useful than the paltry damage of the breath weapon. Plus the feat has a superior range/radius and you get to choose the targets, so you never have to worry about friendly fire. It turns a subpar racial trait into a powerful ability and you get +1 to charisma, too.

[Pex]

It's subjective value of how much you really want the half-feat. The only one screwed over with this is regular Human. Everyone else can have the feat they want and an 18 at 4th level. Variant Human gets a full feat at level 1 or half feat to get to 16. Regular Human can never have an 18 and a feat at level 4 using Point Buy.

[bid]

Based in part on the recent flurry of discussions about races and stats brought on by the varient rules in Tasha, I was wondering, how important is it to have 17 in your primary stat at level 1?

Almost every race can have 16 16 14 10 10 8, but would you go for a weakly dunce with 17 16 14 10 8 8?

You need a SAD class that works well with 16 14 14 12 10 10 before you even consider 17.

[Zhorn]

The game math assumes that you have

* +2 main stat
* positive secondary stats and CON.

at level 1. That's all.

You can probably get by with a +2 main stat up to nearly level 8 without too much real difficulty, going by the DMG's encounter curves.

Very much this. Well said.

@OP, generally the large obsession with getting as high a primary stat as possible from as low a level as possible is somewhat of a power-creep perception issue.
Your average roll with 3d6 stats will be about 11, or with 4d6k3 is about 13
The outliers achieved through lucky rolls for stats and the fully optimized builds can steamroll over the encounters if they are being tuned for what the DMG's difficulty guidelines are built around.
Combine that with frequent short resting and doing very few encounters between long rests and those lower tier encounters start to get perceived as a joke.
This is prompting DM's to more often ignore the books and push harder encounters built around surviving nova rounds with the expectation of single encounters and 5minute adventuring days.
That in turn makes those average stats feel like they cannot compete, normalising the perception of NEEDING high stats in order to be viable. But as PhoenixPhyre covers:

This is why people complain it's too easy--they go way past the baseline and still use the baseline encounter math, even though it says not to.

There's a mismatch between play difficulties
High optimisations and min-maxing makes the standard encounters too easy.
Higher than recommended difficulty encounters make the standard stat characters unable to keep up.

Pair the designed encounter difficulties with the intended stat distributions, and those characters with a max of 14-15 stats in a couple of areas are well suited for several levels of play with high frequency encounter rates over the adventuring days.
And by the mid tier-2 range when those stats start to truly struggle, that's where those additional ASI's from levelling along with the magic items and upgrades from improved gear are appropriately compensating.

So in a party where everyone else is optimizing, a 17 is necessary. In a different party, it's totally fine. The game scales to whatever the party is, only differences within your party really matter.

Disagree just a little bit here. In a high stat, optimized group, if you want to be seen as holding you own individually while comparing to the others, then maybe yeas. But even a low stat character can still bring a strength to the party that doesn't rely on their own stats being high. A druid wild shaping will care little about their own physical stats while making physical attacks as a beast. Caters are able to bring a range of support that increase the overall power of the collective group with buffs and status effects that don't rely of keying off their attributes at all.
Bless, bardic inspiration, shield of faith, fog cloud, lay on hands.
Sleep can just end encounters, or at least lock down a decent amount of the threat.
Magic Missile doesn't care if your casting attribute is 3 or 20.
And then there's the utility they bring to non-combat encounters when the effect of high or low stats is negligible.

[Eldariel]

So in a party where everyone else is optimizing, a 17 is necessary. In a different party, it's totally fine. The game scales to whatever the party is, only differences within your party really matter.

Aside from EA, it's really not that big of a deal. So, the answer to the question is "On Elves only"

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Aside from EA, it's really not that big of a deal. So, the answer to the question is "On Elves only"

That are more relevant feats for it
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthre...heros-Updated)

LudicSavant table is really useful.

[Eldariel]

That are more relevant feats for it
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthre...heros-Updated)

LudicSavant table is really useful.

Well, EA is the only "must-have" tier. There are some "good"-level feats in the others (well, Res: Con is pretty must-haveish for casters but it's generally not the case that you'll have 17 Con specifically unless you're going for Muscle Wizard of some sort), but EA is just a plain ridiculous improvement in all kinds of physical combat since generating advantage is stupid easy in this edition (of course, you need to avoid disadvantage). Far as "Good" ones go, I'd say Resilient, Observant, and Moderately Armored are up there as feats basically anyone would want that give significant boosts to something.

[sithlordnergal]

So, a 17 isn't important, but a 16 is. You're usually better off with a 16 instead of a 17 unless you're going to split your first ASI, or you're going to take a half feat that gives you a +1 to a stat.

As for having a 14 in your primary stat:

14 works from levels 1 to 4 for both casters and martials. However, at level 5 things change. A caster with a 16 in their primary stat is going to quickly find that everything can make their saving throw. You really, really want an 18 by 5th level if you're a caster, otherwise creatures have a really good chance of making their save.

Martials on the other hand have a much easier time and can keep a 16 in their primary stat until level 8.

[Eldariel]

14 works from levels 1 to 4 for both casters and martials. However, at level 5 things change. A caster with a 16 in their primary stat is going to quickly find that everything can make their saving throw. You really, really want an 18 by 5th level if you're a caster, otherwise creatures have a really good chance of making their save.

That really depends on what you fight and how good you are about targeting their weak saves. Weak saves scale really poorly if at all; if you can hit creatures where it hurts they'll have really low chances of saving regardless but of course if you're trying to bulldoze through their good saves, that's different.

[MoiMagnus]

14 works from levels 1 to 4 for both casters and martials. However, at level 5 things change. A caster with a 16 in their primary stat is going to quickly find that everything can make their saving throw. You really, really want an 18 by 5th level if you're a caster, otherwise creatures have a really good chance of making their save.

I don't think there is such a difference between 16 and 18 for saving throws. It's just one additional side of the d20 in your advantage, so it's only relevant once every 20 save.

I mean, there is a difference, but it's not like 14 and 16 are crap and 18 is magically great. If you're in a situation where 16 is crap, 18 would be barely better, and 20 would be average at most. This "barely better" might of course make the difference in an important fight, so it is far from negligible. But you always have to compare with increasing Constitution instead (which can give you one more turn alive in this same important fight).

[AttilatheYeon]

That really depends on what you fight and how good you are about targeting their weak saves. Weak saves scale really poorly if at all; if you can hit creatures where it hurts they'll have really low chances of saving regardless but of course if you're trying to bulldoze through their good saves, that's different.

There's also spells that don't force saves.

[Zhorn]

There's also spells that don't force saves.

Such as Heat Metal. the spell takes effect without a save. If you target their armor, the CON save afterwards to hold/drop their item doesn't matter, they're stuck with taking that 2d8 each round since they cannot remove their armor in any reasonably fast enough speed.
It's perfect for low stat damage

Spoiler: Cook'n'Book

Show

[Keravath]

A 17 isn't important unless you have two odd stats that you want boost with an ASI or if there is a half feat that you want for your particular build. Otherwise, a 17 is irrelevant.

In point buy, the extra +2 points from the 17 can change the modifier of a less important stat by +1 ... avoid -1 on int or str saves for example, provide increased carrying capacity if your table tracks weights and you have an 8 str ... or boost an odd secondary stat at 13 or 15 to 14 or 16. So unless there is a specific reason to want the 17, it is actually detrimental to keep it if you have a choice.

[OldTrees1]

16 is a large advantage over 14 or 15 -- I know you've already seen the math on that since I'm the one who showed it to you, so I'll skip it.

The advantage of 17 over 16 is the value of taking whatever the best available half feat for that stat for your build is relative to just taking a +2.

(Alternatively, it's worth a full ASI if you have 2 17s in two primary stats, such as 17 Wis / 17 Dex on a Monk, since you'd basically have your stats be at the same place at level 4 as most characters would be at level 8).

I do have a nitpick about that math. You compared 1d8+4 vs 1d8+5 rather than a more realistic example accounting for the other sources of damage. This simplified example was a fine generalization for that thread, but perhaps this thread could do with more rigor. Here is my stab at it for a starting point, I expect you could do it better.

3rd level: 14-15(+2) vs 16-17(+3)
Barbarian deals 2d6+2+Mod during a rage but attack at advantage
Rogue deals 1d8+2d6+Mod (at later levels they may trade out the rapier for a dagger)
Paladin deals 1d8+2+Mod but with bursts of +4d8 on crits.

+1 atk is anywhere from +0% hits to +100% hits based on the AC of the target. However both extremes are unlikely. I am also going to assum you started with a 50% hit rate. So it is +10% hits. This goes down as you get to higher levels.
For Barbarians this is less because they attack at advantage.

Barbarians average damage increases from 11 to 12
Rogue average damage increases from 13.5 to 14.5
Paladin average damage increases from 8.5 to 9.5 but their spike damage only increases from 26.5 to 27.5

Barbarians get an increase of 14.8%
((0.7 x (2d6+5))+(0.0975 x (4d6+5))) / ((0.6525 x (2d6+4))+(0.0975 x (4d6+4)))

Rogues get an increase of 15.4%
((0.55 x (1d8+2d6+3))+(0.05 x (6d6+3))) / ((0.45 x (1d8+2d6+3))+(0.05 x (1d8+6d6+3)))

Paladins get a baseline increase of 16.7%
((0.55 x (1d8+4))+(0.05 x (6d8+5))) / ((0.45 x (1d8+4))+(0.05 x (6d8+4)))

And these increases go down towards 10% as the other damage sources increase and go below 10% as baseline accuracy increases. But at some point they will hit the ability cap so starting the comparison low makes sense.

[Trafalgar]

I find this comes up a lot if you are using the Standard Array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8). So lets pretend I am building a Half Orc Martial. I place the two highest in Strength and Constitution for a 17 STR and a 15 CON. At 4th Level I can:

-Use the ASI for a 18 STR and a 16 CON. A substantial improvement in bonuses. Or

-Take a STR Half Feat. Then at the next ASI, take a CON Half Feat. For Example, take Athlete and Orcish Fury. Also a really good option.


What I like best about designing a PC like this is that there are multiple options to take at each ASI and all of them improve stats. But this might be my playing style. I usually only think about the next few levels when making a decision like this. I usually don't have a grand plan for my character at level 20 because I have never gotten a level 1 character to level 20.

[HappyDaze]

I find this comes up a lot if you are using the Standard Array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8). So lets pretend I am building a Half Orc Martial. I place the two highest in Strength and Constitution for a 17 STR and a 15 CON. At 4th Level I can:

-Use the ASI for a 18 STR and a 16 CON. A substantial improvement in bonuses. Or

-Take a STR Half Feat. Then at the next ASI, take a CON Half Feat. For Example, take Athlete and Orcish Fury. Also a really good option.


What I like best about designing a PC like this is that there are multiple options to take at each ASI and all of them improve stats. But this might be my playing style. I usually only think about the next few levels when making a decision like this. I usually don't have a grand plan for my character at level 20 because I have never gotten a level 1 character to level 20.

That same character could have started with 16 Str and 16 Con. Many of the players I've seen would have done that instead.

[tsuyoshikentsu]

I find this comes up a lot if you are using the Standard Array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8). So lets pretend I am building a Half Orc Martial. I place the two highest in Strength and Constitution for a 17 STR and a 15 CON. At 4th Level I can:

-Use the ASI for a 18 STR and a 16 CON. A substantial improvement in bonuses. Or

A character who takes 16 Str/16 Con instead (by placing the 14 in Str and the 15 in Con) can also take an ASI to get 18 Str/16 Con, but will not have been suffering the reduced Con modifier the entire time.

-Take a STR Half Feat. Then at the next ASI, take a CON Half Feat. For Example, take Athlete and Orcish Fury. Also a really good option.

This is almost certainly worse than starting 16/16 and taking two ASIs for +2 strength each time.

[Boci]

Added a list of the half-feats people felt were worthy of mention to the OP. Any others?

[Wildstag]

Question to build off of this discussion, but given that feats are a Variant rule, an option for your GM to allow or not (and there are some that don't, including higher-profile GMs like Colville), how does this change without feats.

If a half-feat isn't an option, how much does the 17 vs 16 issue change?

[Boci]

If a half-feat isn't an option, how much does the 17 vs 16 issue change?

LudicSavant mentioned if you have two stats at odd numbers you can increase both modifers from a single ASI, but in a featless game I don't think +1 to a stat is common enough to have a single stat at an odd number rather than even.

[MinotaurWarrior]

In addition to the primary / secondary bump previously mentioned , I actually think primary / tertiary bumps are often more feasible. E.g. You might be a paladin with 17 Str, 16 CHA, and 15 CON at level 1, and have 18/16/16 at level 4.

[Eldariel]

Like I mentioned in the other thread on the topic, Observant is a solid feat for characters with the inclination (of course, since familiar does spotting for Wizards, they get less out of this than others making the Int-bonus less inspiring, but it's great for Wis-classes). Moderately Armored for characters with such inclination and the prerequisite proficiencies is also a reasonable pick.

[Tanarii]

It's not necessary for the baseline difficulty if the game. The system math assumes a 16 until level 8-12, and a 18 above that, with 20 being optional. This assumes the average enemy is many CR-3, not solo or duo CR. IMO that's more common anyway, and more importantly that's the more challenging scenario for the supposedly same 'difficulty'. So a 14 or 15 might be a little low, but it's survivable low until 4th.

Optimization wise is a different matter. Some people don't want to be sufficiently strong to handle the challenge. They want to be above the required minimum. Either so it's easier going, so they can face more difficult challenges, or because they're addicted to out of game character building pr0n. (Or mini game if you prefer )

[Pex]

So, a 17 isn't important, but a 16 is. You're usually better off with a 16 instead of a 17 unless you're going to split your first ASI, or you're going to take a half feat that gives you a +1 to a stat.

As for having a 14 in your primary stat:

14 works from levels 1 to 4 for both casters and martials. However, at level 5 things change. A caster with a 16 in their primary stat is going to quickly find that everything can make their saving throw. You really, really want an 18 by 5th level if you're a caster, otherwise creatures have a really good chance of making their save.

Martials on the other hand have a much easier time and can keep a 16 in their primary stat until level 8.

That really depends on what you fight and how good you are about targeting their weak saves. Weak saves scale really poorly if at all; if you can hit creatures where it hurts they'll have really low chances of saving regardless but of course if you're trying to bulldoze through their good saves, that's different.

16 is fine if the feat is really important, i.e. something you'll use a lot. The stereotypical Resilient CO or War Caster is good to maintain buffs let alone debuffs against the enemies. Diversify your spell DCs, and you'll be fine. Even Sorcerer can do that if not enough to attack every save. Spell attacks where you roll to hit is ok because not all monsters have high AC, The difference is only by one against the strongest saves because you and monsters increased Proficiency at level 5. Level 8 is where you need the 18. Level 9 is the next Proficiency, and if you only have 16 then you're down by three because the bad guys increase their stats as well at level 8. That's where it makes a difference.

Feat first then 18 or 18 then feat you'll be ok. This is what makes Variant Human good even if you use the new rule of floating stats for everyone else. At level 8 you can have a 20 and a full feat, but you also have the option of an 18 and two full feats at level 8 which is a big deal.

[diplomancer]

Assuming point-buy, 17 is good in 2 situations:
1- you are taking a half-feat that improves your primary ability score and you value it more than a couple extra points to another, quaternary, ability score.
2- you have two odd scores to bump. That happens when:
a- you have a MAD character, starting either with 17 17 (barbarian mountain dwarf) or 17 15 (a race that gives +2 to one of your scores, but 0 to the other)
b- you are playing an odd race/class combination, and the 17 is actually your secondary score, and you are compensating being slightly worse on your primary score by being slightly better in your secondary score.

Option 2b will not happen again with recent changes. Option 2a (17 17) will be far more common.