D&D 5E What is +1 Strength worth?

[James Gasik]

The notion of empowerment there is just shorthand for stuff we should have made rules for but didnt.

Shh! Don't say the quiet part out loud! I often compare this to Bethesda's strategy about Elder Scrolls games. "Don't worry, we can put out an unfinished, unpolished game, and the modding community will keep it going for a good ten years!"

 

[Fenris-77]

Yeah basically. Guy who uses sword and shield because it's a widely effective real world strategy feels put out when his damage output suffers, and enemies just ignore his hard to hit butt and kill the Cleric.

Guy who brings a Pike into a Kobold warren succeeds because he can somehow bap you with the butt end of it every turn.

Guy who likes to use Cure spells in combat feels put out when his spells don't even come close to matching a round of attacks from a big monster.

Guy who wades into combat with Spirit Guardians and just slaps a d4 Healing Word at people who go down succeeds at being a sort of point defense system.

Well yeah, but I was really talking about people who make social characters and then get upset when that doesn't work like they want it to.

 

[James Gasik]

As mentioned in another post, it depends on your character build.
The Goliath Rune Knight for example, missed out on a +2Str at L4 to get Polearm Mastery. Which has been awesome!

Generally +2 to your core stat is generally a no brainer IMHO. But ....it really depends on the feat & player build & that thing called player choice/agency & roleplaying their pc.

As a non-caster, I hate missing. Kind of takes all the fun out of my turn. So I'm quick to get that 20 Str/Dex.

As a caster, I feel it's vital to make sure my enemies fail their saves so my limited spell slots have more value. So I'm quick to get that 20 Int/Wis/Cha.

But whether I need that is debatable. Is PAM with an 18 Strength better than 20 Strength? Sure seems doable, as your example shows.

 

[James Gasik]

Well yeah, but I was really takkibg about people who make social characters and then get upset when that doesn't work like they want it to.

Oh yeah. Or someone who kits out their Rogue to be "Not-Played-By-Harrison Ford" and realizes nobody really cares that they can find traps in their sleep and climb impossibly smooth walls.

 

[Fenris-77]

Shh! Don't say the quiet part out loud! I often compare this to Bethesda's strategy about Elder Scrolls games. "Don't worry, we can put out an unfinished, unpolished game, and the modding community will keep it going for a good ten years!"

Jesus. I've fallen through enough cracks in their dungeons to see how that works.

 

[Lyxen]

The actual issue there is that the things those other players think their PCs should be good at don't get the same mechanical attention. Perils of 5E play.

There is no peril there. There are powergamers, but they are well less dangerous than in 3e for example, as there is much less difference between an optimised character and a non-optimised one. Second, it's not 5e play, it's 5e play with bells and whistles on and in particular feats (and very often multiclassing). Without these, the power gap is noticeably reduced between powergamers and casuals (remove the feat and I'm pretty sure the Rune Knight will be WAY LESS impressive). So please don't complain about what are oveall rather small imbalances when using options which are increase the imbalance in the game. And the final point is that, in any case, the game is not designed to be balanced. This was tried once and did not please, for reasons that can be discussed at length elsewhere, but the designers made it clear, putting too much balance results in a constrained game, contrary to the open-endedness of the game (you don't have to agree, but these people are the professional designers that designed the most successfull TTRPG ever by a huge margin, so, in addition to my personal feelings, I would tend to agree with them more than with the average internet Joe). So yes, as in most TTRPGs out there (although most don't care about balance, it's really that boardgamy thing quite specific to D&D), the balance is squarely within the hands of the DM, and he has all the tools to correct that, whether it's the situations that he puts in play, the types of adversaries, their tactics, what the party finds in terms of items.

One guy tried this at our tables in Tomb of Annihilation (we have a few powergamers left in hiding), but even with the care that he put (Goliath Fighter Barbarian with feats) and the fact that options were allowed, he ended up not dominating anything in particular. DMs are there for a reason, although I agree that the other way around, some DMs, usually unconsciously, create situations that are so similar that some builds are more effective, or let the player twist the situation so that he is more effective. Simply don't do this, or even better make sure to create situations where the power gap is less noticeable.

 

[Minigiant]

+1 Strength in 5e is worth more when:

1. you don't optimize
2. you use lower stats
3. you play classical attrition high encounter D&D.
4. you use fewer variants (feats and multiclassing)
5. you don't play fantastical races with high fantasy racial traits

The more "Old School" your game, the more important that +1 STR at level 1 matters.

 

[Horwath]

I'd much rather put that +1 into int, wis or cha. Knowledge skills, social skills, perception and insight can shift the course of a campaign and have much farther reaching impact much more often. Killing 1 bugbear out of 10 faster every few fights? Not so much.

As I stated in Tasha's thread, I completely agree with you.

And as I said, I would leave that +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1 to the player for their own version of imagined character.

will it be 16/16/16/8/8/8 or 14/14/14/12/12/12, up to them.

It's a trade-off, do you want +3 in primary role and -1 in secondary or +2 in primary and +1 in secondary?

 

[Horwath]

There is no peril there. There are powergamers, but they are well less dangerous than in 3e for example, as there is much less difference between an optimised character and a non-optimised one. Second, it's not 5e play, it's 5e play with bells and whistles on and in particular feats (and very often multiclassing). Without these, the power gap is noticeably reduced between powergamers and casuals (remove the feat and I'm pretty sure the Rune Knight will be WAY LESS impressive). So please don't complain about what are oveall rather small imbalances when using options which are increase the imbalance in the game. And the final point is that, in any case, the game is not designed to be balanced. This was tried once and did not please, for reasons that can be discussed at length elsewhere, but the designers made it clear, putting too much balance results in a constrained game, contrary to the open-endedness of the game (you don't have to agree, but these people are the professional designers that designed the most successfull TTRPG ever by a huge margin, so, in addition to my personal feelings, I would tend to agree with them more than with the average internet Joe). So yes, as in most TTRPGs out there (although most don't care about balance, it's really that boardgamy thing quite specific to D&D), the balance is squarely within the hands of the DM, and he has all the tools to correct that, whether it's the situations that he puts in play, the types of adversaries, their tactics, what the party finds in terms of items.

One guy tried this at our tables in Tomb of Annihilation (we have a few powergamers left in hiding), but even with the care that he put (Goliath Fighter Barbarian with feats) and the fact that options were allowed, he ended up not dominating anything in particular. DMs are there for a reason, although I agree that the other way around, some DMs, usually unconsciously, create situations that are so similar that some builds are more effective, or let the player twist the situation so that he is more effective. Simply don't do this, or even better make sure to create situations where the power gap is less noticeable.

It's always in DMs hands.

You need to know your players and their characters.

Powergamer is not bad for the game if he keeps his powergaming to itself. If they do not trash talk other players about how their characters suck(constructive advice is always nice) and how they dont know how to read even PHB.

And DM should vary combats and social situations so every PC can excel in few of them over a level and maybe be hindered in one of them. Just to show that one-trick-pony has many chinks in the armor.

I.E. do not throw fire elementals all the time at your pyromaniac sorcerer, but few battles that one of the opponents have fire resistance/immunity is a good advice to diversify your spell selection a little or atleast have elemental metamagic as backup.

also flying opponents sometimes can trigger memory of your roflstomping barbarian with GWM&PAM, +2 dragonfury halberd that they have long forgotten longbow on their character sheets from level 1.

 

[Lyxen]

It's always in DMs hands.

Indeed.

Powergamer is not bad for the game if he keeps his powergaming to itself.

They usually don't, and that's the problem.

If they do not trash talk other players about how their characters suck(constructive advice is always nice) and how they dont know how to read even PHB.

There's that, but there's also purposefully widening the power gap and twisting the game to express that gap.

And DM should vary combats and social situations so every PC can excel in few of them over a level and maybe be hindered in one of them. Just to show that one-trick-pony has many chinks in the armor.

Indeed.