Scribe
Legend
I've done the math, care to demonstrate this 20% increase?
D&D General How do you like your ASIs?
- Thread starter JiffyPopTart
- Start date
Scott Christian
Hero
We could say, it is the game we have, it's not how most play.
Scott Christian
Hero
I can say this, as I have stated many times before. I feel there wouldn't be an argument if someone just said:
"I want to play an high elf fighter that starts with a 17 strength because that gives me a +3. I want to be as strong as the half-orc."
To me, there is no argument to this. That is what the player wants. The rules allow it. Done.
But instead, it seems many want wordplay around the obvious. And that is where the other side starts attacking. For example, it can't be because you want to roleplay an elven fighter, because you could already do that. You just start with a 15. It can't be because you want a weak orc, because there is no DM on earth that won't let you put an 8 or a 6 or a 4 in an attribute. It can only be the +3, which again, is absolutely fine. I have no problem with it. But it should be clear, not obfuscated.
Bill Zebub
“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
15 Strength:
Proficiency Bonus: +2
Strength Bonus: +2
AC: 15
Needed to hit: 11
Chance to hit: 11/20 = 50%
Average Damage Per Hit (long sword): 4.5 + 2 = 6.5
Average Damage Per Attempt: 6.5 * 50% = 3.25
16 Strength:
Need to Hit: 10
Chance to Hit: 55%
Average Damage Per Hit: 7.5
Average Damage Per Attempt: 7.5 * 0.55 = 4.125
4.125 / 3.25 = 1.27
27% increase in damage.
Bill Zebub
“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
But, see...again...it's not about comparisons to other people's characters. At least not to me. (But it seems like the fixed ASI people do keep focusing on comparisons like that.)
For me, it's about a comparison between two choices I have in front of me:
1. A character with a cool, flavorful race I would prefer.
2. A character with a race I prefer less, but that does 27%* more damage.
(See previous post for the 27%)
Scribe
Legend
Right, I thought you were saying 20% increase to hit. I accept that at low level a +1 to damage is meaningful.
Crimson Longinus
Legend
But the stats only make sense in comparison. Is strength 400 good or bad? If average human has 100 and human maximum is 300, it is super good. If average is 250 and human maximum is 600, it is not that amazing. To a lot of people the purpose of rules is actually to represent the fiction, not just provide flavourless bonuses that don't mean anything.
Seems like an obvious choice. Choose the one you'd prefer for flavour. Power is an illusion, the GM has endless amount of trolls. If everyone minmaxes their characters to do hella lot damage, the GM will just use more monsters next time. Again, this is not a progression raid in MMO, the aim is not to 'win D&D.'
I agree wirh your calculations. However, you only do more damage if the other players in your groups are all taking choice 2 and you're "forced" to keep up with them, foregoing your flavorful idea, or accepting the "relative penalty" damagewise. If everyone in your group has a 15 instead of a 16, everyone will do less damage and the DM will send 20% less kobolds at your group than he'd hzve in the other case. When I GM I tailor the challenge to the PCs and I am pretty sure everyone does that. I once had a single-race campaign because the premise was a band of brothers and sisters, yet we had many classes, and the game didn't break. It was just adjusted differently thant it would have been of everyone was optimized.
Scribe
Legend
This is extremely true.
"oh you all built for optimization? Then we increase the difficulty.'
"ok, highest stat is a 15? Wild, here's what you face."
The challenge is relative to what the DM wants to send at you.
The MMO comment is funny as well. I raid. There are enrage timers, which means there are dps checks. If you dont do X damage for Y time, you fail.
In THAT scenario, there is no DM to add or remove monsters, stats, items.
Thats not what D&D has.
Scott Christian
Hero
I like this, and thanks for showing it. But, it needs context.
Fighter A hits one round and misses the next. He does 6 damage to the bugbear which has 23HP. Fighter B hits one round and misses the next. She does 8 damage to the bugbear. The bugbear has taken 14 points of damage, and is now at 9HP. The wizard comes along and casts burning hands at 2nd level. The bugbear fails its dex save. It takes 13 damage. No one at the table complains.
The entire game, in context, can be skewed so heavily towards spellcasters if the DM does one combat and then a long rest. No one gripes. The entire game, in context, can have such swingy rolls (I mean, I have rolled three 20's in a row before, and maxed out damage on two of those attacks!), but no one gripes.
I guess what I am saying is it is a perceived notion, because in combat, things are so swingy, opponents so varied (cleric vs undead anyone), that by the higher levels there is massive disparity between characters.
