D&D (2024) Using general Feats when your ability is already 20

A good example might be your high str fighter using a rapier with vex vs the low str fighter using a rapier with vex.

Even something as simple as a greatsword with graze benefits the higher str character even more.

In real play these differences can really matter.

There are certainly big differences just based on the build, it also varies quite a bit based on what you prioritize. Want to be a tank that protects their friends or focus on damage because the best defense is a good offense? Maybe you want to be good at something other than fighting.

I was just trying to compare apples to apples.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Did you really meant 30% better?
No. 300%. See my example above where a 2nd level barbarian with a 20 strength is outdamaging a 2nd level fighter with sword and board and a 14 strength. It is literally a 300% difference.
...What you post above may be your experience in some games, but it is not universally true and IME not even generally true.
You're entitled to an opinion, but there is pretty insanely widespread evidence of it occurring often that you can read here on Enworld in various threads over the years that discuss how a character with high rolled stats 'ruined' a game. This is one of those threads that reappears over and over and over and over and over and ....
 

No. 300%. See my example above where a 2nd level barbarian with a 20 strength is outdamaging a 2nd level fighter with sword and board and a 14 strength. It is literally a 300% difference.
You're entitled to an opinion, but there is pretty insanely widespread evidence of it occurring often that you can read here on Enworld in various threads over the years that discuss how a character with high rolled stats 'ruined' a game. This is one of those threads that reappears over and over and over and over and over and ....
There's 300% difference because, in part, they're completely different builds.

I think there's significant and IMO unfair advantages far too often if you roll for stats. I just don't think there's any reason to exaggerate it by using different options.
 

There's 300% difference because, in part, they're completely different builds.
... and? The point was you can have huge discrepancies and they have an impact. It was demonstrative of how big those impacts can be with different ability scores being a significant factor.

However, if you just want to do a quick comparison just between +4 for 2d6+2 and +7 for 2d6+5:

+4 needs an 11 to hit. 45% of the time it deals an average of 9, and 5% it deals an average of 16. 4.85.

+7 needs an 8 to hit. 60% of the time it deals an average of 12, and 5% of the time it deals an average of 19. 8.15 on average. It deals a 'mere' 68% more damage. If you don't think that makes a huge difference in a game ...
 


... and? The point was you can have huge discrepancies and they have an impact. It was demonstrative of how big those impacts can be with different ability scores being a significant factor.

However, if you just want to do a quick comparison just between +4 for 2d6+2 and +7 for 2d6+5:

+4 needs an 11 to hit. 45% of the time it deals an average of 9, and 5% it deals an average of 16. 4.85.

+7 needs an 8 to hit. 60% of the time it deals an average of 12, and 5% of the time it deals an average of 19. 8.15 on average. It deals a 'mere' 68% more damage. If you don't think that makes a huge difference in a game ...
Did you read my reply? The last one or the one before that where I calculated a 75% increase in damage? Or that I think the difference is significant or that I don't like rolling for stats because of the issues I've seen it cause at the table?

Anyway, I'm not going to argue about this any more.
 

It depends on how big the difference is. A fighter with a 20 strength and con is going so shine compared to a fighter with 14s. Even then, there are some players that are just more effective while playing their characters than others.
Just FYI since this was the first post in the discussion where the PCs are identical except the STR difference:

For a d8 weapon, each 2-pt STR bump (+1 modifier) increases average damage by 0.5225 points or 12.3% over all d20 rolls.
For a 2d6 weapons, the same average damage of 0.5225 points, but just 9.3% over all d20 rolls.

Now, if we compare STR 20 (rolled+2) vs. STR 17* (15 standard array max+2), how does it look?

Well, for d8 weapons, it is 1.0445 points, which results in a 24.3% increase over all d20 rolls.
For 2d6 weapons, it is also 1.0445 points, but this results in a 18.5% increase over all d20 rolls.

(*I don't know if you can start with an 18 without rolling in 2024...)

How noticable is basically 1 point of extra damage on every attack? In my experience not much, but the percentages make it feel like there is more impact than there really is. If your fight lasts 3 rounds, how much does that 3 points really impact the fight when you consider how swingy both attack rolls and even damage rolls can be? Again, in my experience not much.

So, I don't think personally most players would notice any appreciable difference having say, a STR 16 vs. STR 20 when it comes to their effectiveness in combat.

(My calculations involved STR 14, 16, 18, and 20.)
 

Just FYI since this was the first post in the discussion where the PCs are identical except the STR difference:

For a d8 weapon, each 2-pt STR bump (+1 modifier) increases average damage by 0.5225 points or 12.3% over all d20 rolls.
For a 2d6 weapons, the same average damage of 0.5225 points, but just 9.3% over all d20 rolls.

Now, if we compare STR 20 (rolled+2) vs. STR 17* (15 standard array max+2), how does it look?

Well, for d8 weapons, it is 1.0445 points, which results in a 24.3% increase over all d20 rolls.
For 2d6 weapons, it is also 1.0445 points, but this results in a 18.5% increase over all d20 rolls.

(*I don't know if you can start with an 18 without rolling in 2024...)

How noticable is basically 1 point of extra damage on every attack? In my experience not much, but the percentages make it feel like there is more impact than there really is. If your fight lasts 3 rounds, how much does that 3 points really impact the fight when you consider how swingy both attack rolls and even damage rolls can be? Again, in my experience not much.

So, I don't think personally most players would notice any appreciable difference having say, a STR 16 vs. STR 20 when it comes to their effectiveness in combat.

(My calculations involved STR 14, 16, 18, and 20.)
The difference between an 18 and a 20 isn't much, the difference between 14 and 20 is significant.
 

The difference between an 18 and a 20 isn't much, the difference between 14 and 20 is significant.
Right, but that's expected, isn't it?

The question is why would one PC have a 20 and another a 14 and anyone expect them to play the same in their effectiveness? I don't think anyone would nor to I recall anyone claiming they believed so, but maybe I missed it?

Originally, my point was about a single +1 modifier difference. Even a +2 isn't that noticable frankly, as I outlined in my post. That is the difference you might see if a PC is maxed at 20 by rolling and another maxes out their standard array to 17.
 

Remove ads

Top