D&D 5E Ability Scores Are Different Now?

[Tony Vargas]

I'm sure there's varying degrees of emphasis placed on other ability scores at various tables at any given e, but 5e seems to emphasize a breadth in ability scores that is a little new for D&D.

A little new, I guess.

Obviously, classic D&D never emphasized breadth of ability scores, with it's random rolls and bonuses only for quite high stats. In 3e was a severe disability, if not a terminal illness for a character class, but you still wanted DEX (das uberstat), CON (hps, FORT), WIS (will, spot/listen) and INT (skill points) in as much as you could manage it. 4e's handling of non-AC defenses gave you more flexibility in which stats you emphasized, and gave you good reason to try to keep 3 of them up, but only let you bump two stats at a time, so it never quite worked out. Even so, you /could/ get by with a 16 to start in a prime stat (even if you didn't have a racial bonus to add to it), thanks to all the 'math fix' furor. I've even managed to get by with a 14 by cherry picking powers with effect & miss lines, weapon attacks targeting non-AC defenses, and, of course, being able to hand off my standard action.

...

In 5e a high stat is more critical than ever, since your stat, at up to +5 is going to be responsible for most of your bonus prettymuch your whole career. It's just easier to max out a stat earlier or later in the game - and, if feats are available, there's a tradeoff. You do, though, need three high stats for saves: CON, DEX, and WIS (just like 3e). And, even if you cover them, and are lucky enough to have one of them be your prime stat, as well, the other three can still pop up and bite you.

Likewise, you never know what kind of non-proficient non-prime/non-save stat check your DM may decide your character's life depends upon...

So, yeah, in a sense, everyone's MAD in 5e.

 

[Gradine]

All else being equal, a 16 Str fighter will deal 40% less damage than a 20 Str fighter. That is much more significant than a similar Strength difference in 4e.

The change is actually for the worse. A maxed stat is far more important in 5e than it was in 4e.

I'm no mathematician, but near as I can figure that 40% figure only holds up if your weapon is only contributing 2 points of damage per swing (7 dmg v. 5 dmg = 40% difference). Even if our hypothetical fighter is swinging a single dagger that number is a bit off, and it goes further off the rails the better the weapon you use. This isn't even taking into account the impact of magic weapons, or other buffs or benefits that add to damage irrespective of Strength (such as crits, superiority dice, or cantrips, just to name the features from the Fighter subclasses).

2 damage per swing doesn't really seem like it accounts for much, when all is said and done.

Edit: I'm not really factoring in the 10% greater chance to hit as that would apply evenly throughout the editions. The way 5e handles damage strongly de-emphasizes the need for high stats compared to previous editions.

 

[Minigiant]

Abilities scores are different now but for another reason.

They have a cost as well as a cap AND you don't get one at level one.

In 3e and 4e increasing scores were automatic parts of progression.

In 5e, you have to choose between an improvement or a feat and you can't go over 20. And if a feat is a major part of your character concept, you had to make a hard choice at level 4.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

To be honest I think this is all in your head. Starting with as high a score as possible is still desirable because most the things you do will key off of that ability. The only difference now is that once you max out your primary score you receive vastly diminishing returns with each successive ability up.

Yup, the 'need' for high stats has always been in large part a matter of perception.

The XP bonuses and stat prereqs for spell levels in pre-WotC D&D probably made high stats more 'mandatory' than any WotC edition, but don't tell that to an old school fan! "The XP bonus is nice, but you don't need it!"

3.x spell level prereqs still suggest that at least casters need at least a 15 in their casting stat at level one, and must boost that to a 19 by level 16 to make full use of their spells. And indeed, the standard ability array in 3.x includes a high score of 15. So I'd peg that as the 3.x minimum, but an 18 is by no means mandatory.

4e certainly expects players to boost their prime stat at every level-up opportunity, but again, starting with a 20 is by no means necessary. Given that the standard array's high score is 16, I consider it the 4e minimum. But then, I had one player go lower still, so even that's subject to interpretation.

And I don't think that 5e will be notably different. CharOp will use 15 as the new 18 due to the weird point buy cap, but savvy players will nevertheless know that boosting your prime to 20 needs to be done ASAP. And I'm sure that there will be a fairly clear order of priorities concerning which stats are best to boost after one's prime stat.

It's like, the differences between high and low scores in 3e and 4e were HUGE. The differences here seem to be a lot smaller. "More forgiving." They didn't remove all variation, but it feels like they narrowed the spread.

I think it's a matter of perception. If you're playing a 3.x greatsword-dude, the difference between a 17 and an 18 is a +1 to attack rolls and a +2 to damage, which is a pretty big deal at low levels. And if you're playing a caster, a 20 means two bonus 1st level spells! But overall in 3.x and 4e? I haven't noticed a big difference between one modifier and the next. It's a 5% chance to hit more or less often, and 1 point of damage.

I think that there are basically two types of gamers who feel they 'need' to max out one stat or other: Natural optimizers, and forum-goers who take the CharOp forum at face value. And I don't think that 5e will change either group. Fortunately, I've known plenty of gamers who don't fall into either category and still manage to have a blast playing the game.

 

[Lanefan]

Were it up to me (and unfortunately it isn't) you'd have a better chance of decent stats at roll-up but they would improve very slowly if at all after that. The 1e Cavalier had a percentile increment system; we applied it to all classes and it works great! But getting a built-in stat jump every 4 levels is too much.

Also, if your stats are going to jump on their own there's much less 'wow' to finding an item that gives a one-time permanent stat jump; and no 'wow' at all if you're already at 20. (I know I'd be p-o'ed if my Strength, say, was at 20 and I wasted a one-shot Strength booster without realizing it; and note those things usually can never be pre-Identified)

Lanefan

 

[Ashkelon]

I'm no mathematician, but near as I can figure that 40% figure only holds up if your weapon is only contributing 2 points of damage per swing (7 dmg v. 5 dmg = 40% difference). Even if our hypothetical fighter is swinging a single dagger that number is a bit off, and it goes further off the rails the better the weapon you use. This isn't even taking into account the impact of magic weapons, or other buffs or benefits that add to damage irrespective of Strength (such as crits, superiority dice, or cantrips, just to name the features from the Fighter subclasses).

2 damage per swing doesn't really seem like it accounts for much, when all is said and done.

Edit: I'm not really factoring in the 10% greater chance to hit as that would apply evenly throughout the editions. The way 5e handles damage strongly de-emphasizes the need for high stats compared to previous editions.

Level 5 Great Weapon Master Fighter using a greatsword. Against an AC of 16 damage per round is as follows:
30.44 for the 20 Strength fighter.
19.34 for the 16 Strength fighter.

20 Strength fighter does 55% more damage than the 16 Strength fighter.

So your assumption is wrong. Very wrong in fact. You are quite correct about your lack of math skills though.

Mod Note: The math skills crack was uncalled for. Please address the logic of the post, not the person of the poster. Moreoever, if you don't want a moderator coming down on you, we strongly suggest you resist the urge to make snide digs at people like that. ~Umbran

 

[doctorhook]

Level 5 Great Weapon Master Fighter using a greatsword. Against an AC of 16 damage per round is as follows:
30.44 for the 20 Strength fighter.
19.34 for the 16 Strength fighter.

20 Strength fighter does 55% more damage than the 16 Strength fighter.

So your assumption is wrong. Very wrong in fact. You are quite correct about your lack of math skills though.

You just insulted another poster for their math skills, but you didn't even bother to post your calculations.

Great Weapon Master is not currently a thing in 5E, so I have to assume you're using TDWSNBN. From what I can tell, it looks like a high-damage feature, because the 5th level Defense fighter in my game isn't doing anything close to 30 or even 19 average damage. It weakens your argument if you have to rely on an extreme case to make your point.

You toss out some oddly precise average damage numbers without describing how you got them, and then you post that one deals 55% more damage than the other. (Nearest I can figure is that you meant 57%, so I'm not sure why you're so imprecise here.)

All of this relies on the assumption that average damage is the only thing that matters. It is not.

 

[Gradine]

A 5th level fighter with a greatsword and 20 str, in 10 rounds, is going to hit AC 16 an average of 13 times, for 2d6+5. That's an average of 12.5, multiplied by 1.3 gets you to 13.8 damage per round. Assuming 2 crits (on 19 & 20), add 15 damage total, or 1.5 per round, to 15.3 DPR. Great Weapon Master, assuming the math doesn't change on it when the actual PHB comes out, effectively doubles damage for five fewer hits over that span (3 fewer, assuming two crits and ensuing bonus attacks from the feat). So, that comes out to; 25 x 1 +1.5 (bonus from two crits) = 26.5.

Same fighter with 16 str is hitting same AC 11 times, or 7 for double damage.
2d6+3, average is 10.5, multiplied by 1.1 gets an average of 11.55. With 2 crits, that bumps to 13.05.
Under the same assumptions using GWM, we get: 21 x .8 +1.5 = 18.3

26.5 over 18.3 gives an actually pretty impressive 45% difference in damage over ten rounds, proving your own point with actual math way better than with pulling numbers out of nowhere and slinging insults. There are a few issues with this, however.

• It assumes the continued presence, with no tweaks, of a feat we know exists but don't know if it exists in the same form.
• Great Weapon Fighting improves both numbers. It should do so in equal measure, because it effects dice and not bonuses to damage, but favors the higher strength slightly simply due to hitting two more times. It certainly doesn't give the 20 str fighter an extra 3.94 DPR but the 16 str fighter only an extra 1.04 DPR though. Nice try though.
• The bulk of the difference comes from being able to hit more often, not from the 2 (or 4) more points of damage each hit. A 4 point difference in Strength has always, in every past WOTC-produced edition, accounted for a 10% greater chance of hitting. In the (not unheard) circumstance where both of the above fighters hit 9 times out of 20 swings, even with the feat we don't know exists yet, the difference is only 17%, which is significant but not nearly as staggering. The issue here is how these differences in Strength stack up to past editions. The impact on hit percentage is even, and I would suspect that the impact on damage is actually lower than in, say 3.5. ESPECIALLY with a two-handed weapon fighter, who's getting 1.5 str modifier to damage, and getting that modifier multiplied in crits. It's late and I'm tired, but I'd be interested in seeing the same math with two 3.5 fighters of equal everything but Str (we'll say level 6, to account for the extra attack), power attacking at -5 BAB with every swing. I'm prepared to eat crow if I'm wrong. I was certainly surprised by my results above, so who knows.
• Oh, and show your work. And leave the ad hominems at home.

 

[Psikerlord#]

I think its very much an intentional design feature to get off the ability score treadmill of the last few editions.

It gets you closer to pre 3E, with the luxury of being able to still increase score as needed without depending solely on the generosity of the DM or their adventure or treasure tables.

Also makes it possible to get the sort of stats that cool NPCs would have in Dragon magazine way back when. I think thats the real goal.

I agree and I love it. I think a 16 will do for your whole adventuring career thanks to bounded accuracy and the availability of advantage and bless. I despised the 4e stat treadmill. Unmaxed stats working just fine is one of the best thing about 5e imo.

 

[Paraxis]

If you build a character with less than a 16 in primary ability score you are hurting not only yourself but your whole team of fellow players. Your character has a job to do and if they can't hold their own, why in the world would the rest of the characters take you along on adventures. Now your job might not be damage dealing, but whatever it is it still uses one key ability score to be effective.

This has been true in all the past editions for the most part, and will always stay true. In 5e honestly with the feats we have seen so far it will almost always be the most optimal choice to increase your primary ability score up to 20 as fast as you can.

If your character doesn't hit, or if the monster resists your spell, you pretty much wasted your round. As always accuracy is key, and so are high spell save DC's. One of the reasons I like damage on miss effects or half effect spells is at least something happens.