Exactly how important is it to start the game with a +3 ability score modifier?

Personally, I would not build a character that does not start with +3 in their primary stat, unless the concept absolutely does not work without a particular race/class combo, and even then, I'd take a hard look at the concept to see if it's worth it. The way 5e's ability score increases work means that having a lower primary stat will haunt you (that is, weaken you significantly) for all 20 levels. If my ranger starts with 15 Dexterity, I will have a lower attack and damage bonus than my potential at least until 12th level, after which I will have one fewer feat than I would otherwise for the rest of my levels (or a lower secondary stat, in classes like paladin or barbarian). Every +1 matters in 5e, especially at lower levels, and feats are very powerful once you've maxed out your primary stat, so you're giving up a big amount of power at the start, and that power gap doesn't really narrow no matter how high you level.

If feats weren't allowed, the power gap difference would actually shrink at higher levels, since +2 to a secondary stat doesn't provide as much of a power boost compared to a feat for most builds (paladins, barbarians, etc excepted), but that's not applicable to AL. This is also why rolling for ability scores is a terrible idea in 5e: if a character starts with 18 in a stat (due to rolling 16+ and picking the right race), they will have a massive power boost from the beginning that translates into more feats than everyone else later on. Thankfully, rolling stats is banned in AL (for numerous reasons).

The are a few feats which I consider worth taking over boosting my primary stat early on (Sharpshooter, GWM, etc), but if my character wants one of those feats, I will almost certainly pick variant human in order to have them without delaying my stat progression.

see http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...ugren)/page2&p=6746674&viewfull=1#post6746674

there's actually a pretty broad spell selection available even if your casting stat is +0 or +1. +3 is nice work if you can get it, but it's not the end of the world.

Naw, you don't need a +3 in a stat. Do you really think your contribution to the group will be hamstrung if you do one less point of damage, or your attack roll is one lower? Absolutely not, especially considering that, by foregoing the +3, you likely boosted another stat that can help close the gap in some way.

I was interested in trying some oddball race/class combos, and started working on a guide for spellcasters interested in suboptimal casting stats. What I discovered is that there are a TON of spells that require neither a saving throw nor attack modifier. I'm categorizing spells alphabetically, and I've got almost 100 entries and I'm not even to "F" yet.

Now, there are a lot of asterisks to this: almost none of these spells do damage, and many of them enable your allies. More often than not, AL adventures are about how many HP you can burn through before you die or run out of (IRL) time. But there are still a lot of useful things in that list.

Remember that +1 to hit/save DC increases your hit chance to 5% higher than it was; mathematically, this means that against an AC 14 creature, you'll hit 50% of the time instead of 55% of the time -- a +3 ability modifier would give you +10% hit rate. The value of this changes significantly based on what you face; an 18 AC monster will be 30% -> 35% or +16% hit rate while an AC 10 creature is 70% -> 75% or only +7% hit rate. This change in hit rate becomes less noticeable the better your chances, so if you have other ways to improve your hit rate (darkness shenanigans, archery fighting style, reckless attack) you'll mitigate this a bit.

To think about it another way, you have a 5% chance per attack that your 14 stat relative to a 16 stat will matter—95% of the time, you would have achieved exactly the same outcome regardless of +2 or +3.

Similarly, remember that there's an opportunity cost to taking a 16 stat. If, for example, taking a 14 in your spellcasting stat lets you get a 16 in Dexterity, that means the 5% chance of spellcasts mattering is exchanged for 5% chance of dodging a fireball, balancing on a tightrope or beating a monster in initiative that you otherwise wouldn't.

In the end, you're probably not going to notice a +1 here or there, especially if the value you get in exchange is quite high. It really depends on what's important to you in how you play. But if the only thing you care about is how much damage you do in a white-room simulation, then a 16-stat at level 1 will always be superior.

TwinPeaksGuy said:

see http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...ugren)/page2&p=6746674&viewfull=1#post6746674

there's actually a pretty broad spell selection available even if your casting stat is +0 or +1.

Click to expand...

Indeed -- I have a 6th-level Eldritch Knight with a 10 Int. He mostly uses his slots for shield and magic missile.

If you plan on multi-classing your character, then starting out with that 16 in your main stat will make a difference on when you can add that second class, since you may need to wait til you can up the required stats for adding that new class.

Also, even though AL requires the use of point buy, I hate having any stats that provide negative modifiers, so I tend to have slightly sub-optimal characters when compared to the min-maxers.

I see it differently.

Normal characters have a +3, even most pregens. That translates to +5 to hit.

A player who starts with a +2 instead is 20% worse than the other guys in the -main- thing that matters ie damaging the bad guys. You are effectively 4 levels behind everyone in terms of base combat stats.

It might mathematically be a 5% shift in odds on any individual roll, but you are almost certainly bringing that stat to bear a huge amount of your career. Also its not just to hit, but also to damage for martial classes.

For a wizard. You are rarely going to utilize a bump in strength. Even if you are subjected to a strength save/check, you are still probably failing it. You are not the guy that should be trying to kick the doors in. But at a minimum you should be using cantrips in most combats. The same goes for charisma...if there isn't a party member who uses charisma then you just accept the party mostly will be bad in social situations.

NeverLucky said:

If feats weren't allowed, the power gap difference would actually shrink at higher levels, since +2 to a secondary stat doesn't provide as much of a power boost compared to a feat for most builds (paladins, barbarians, etc excepted), but that's not applicable to AL. This is also why rolling for ability scores is a terrible idea in 5e: if a character starts with 18 in a stat (due to rolling 16+ and picking the right race), they will have a massive power boost from the beginning that translates into more feats than everyone else later on. Thankfully, rolling stats is banned in AL (for numerous reasons).

The are a few feats which I consider worth taking over boosting my primary stat early on (Sharpshooter, GWM, etc), but if my character wants one of those feats, I will almost certainly pick variant human in order to have them without delaying my stat progression.

Click to expand...

This is really the meat of the discussion. Feats can be so powerful and work with such synergy, the +3 is sorta required. I think especially for open play or conventions; 3 and 4 person groups can be very difficult (you have to pull more than your own) and that extra +1 can really make a difference.

The difference of a +1 to hit in this edition is much less important than it was in some previous editions. I like 5e because a suboptimal character can be effective. I have a longspear fighter with 15 Str and 16 Dex because I wanted the higher AC and initiative and to try and make Oberyn Martel, who seems more dexy than strength and he has worked just fine. Most things you fight in low levels in AL have AC around 14 or 15, so +1 doesn't make much difference.

Ainulindalion said:

I have a plan for a Halfling Divination Wizard with the Lucky feat just for purposes of screwing with DMs. But he/she also won't have a +3 INT at level 1. Or until level 8, actually.

Click to expand...

I have one of those exact characters, and it's fun. He's a statistician, so all his spells and abilities (he's multiclass) are about providing advantage/disadvantage, etc. Not the most optimized character, but fun to play regardless. "The Master of Luck and Death knows all and sees all, within the standard deviation!"