D&D 5E Ability Scores Are Different Now?

[Lanefan]

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.

And what none of this takes into account is whether the Fighter at any Strength is going to survive long enough to do all this damage with her greatsword, as while wielding a 2-handed weapon you have no shield and thus your AC takes a clobberin'. Thus, to do this means 10 rounds of getting whaled on by whatever you're fighting...

Lan-"whatever else happens, the combat will be short"-efan

 

[ExploderWizard]

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.

BECAUSE D&D IS SEWIOUS BUSINESS!!!!!!!

Player with your outlook inspire me to play a parade of gnome jesters, and halfling commoners just for the lolz.

 

[Mistwell]

The thing is, this is equally true for 4e. (And 3E, as far as I know.) You can build a fully viable 4e character with a 16 prime stat at 1st level. (I know, because my 4e campaign had such a character, who is now about to reach 27th level.)

It's true that in 4e you have to boost your prime stat every N levels, but that's just a feature of 4e's version of bounded accuracy. In 5e, the equivalent approach to PC building would be to never boost your prime stat and instead take feats at every opportunity.

When I mention 4e, in any way, this will be a fair retort. As my comment had nothing at all to do with 4e, I fail to understand you jumping defensively to defend 4e from some perceived attack on it concerning ability scores.

 

[Paraxis]

BECAUSE D&D IS SEWIOUS BUSINESS!!!!!!!

Player with your outlook inspire me to play a parade of gnome jesters, and halfling commoners just for the lolz.

Players with your outlook don't find themselves welcome in the games I run. In games I play in I handle it in character and my characters would never trust their life adventuring with gnome jesters and halfling commoners, one of us would leave the group.

D&D is a game about delving into the dark places of the world to fight against monsters, if your character can't contribute meaningfully to the fighting or delving then your character should not be in a D&D game. There are plenty of roleplaying games out there about espionage, social climbing, and basket weaving D&D is not one of them.

 

[pemerton]

When I mention 4e, in any way, this will be a fair retort. As my comment had nothing at all to do with 4e, I fail to understand you jumping defensively to defend 4e from some perceived attack on it concerning ability scores.

It was intended as a retort so much as an observation, in the context of what I took to be the topic of the thread: that somehow ability scores, and the imperatives around them, are different in 5e from the previous two editions.

 

[SkidAce]

Players with your outlook don't find themselves welcome in the games I run. In games I play in I handle it in character and my characters would never trust their life adventuring with gnome jesters and halfling commoners, one of us would leave the group.

D&D is a game about delving into the dark places of the world to fight against monsters, if your character can't contribute meaningfully to the fighting or delving then your character should not be in a D&D game. There are plenty of roleplaying games out there about espionage, social climbing, and basket weaving D&D is not one of them.

D&D is one of them.

I guess we could find a neutral place and you could watch our games with espionage, overthrowing the ruling class, herb witch collecting mushrooms for potions in the forest etc. (We also dungeon delve)

I will admit there has been no basket weaving yet, so you only 66% incorrect.

 

[Warunsun]

The "20 cap" just applies to feat style increases. I am sure D&D will provide more rare & fantastic ways to increase ability scores.

 

[evileeyore]

There are plenty of roleplaying games out there about espionage, social climbing, and basket weaving D&D is not one of them.

And the "special" sauce just keeps getting slathered on.

 

[jadrax]

D&D is a game about delving into the dark places of the world to fight against monsters, if your character can't contribute meaningfully to the fighting or delving then your character should not be in a D&D game. There are plenty of roleplaying games out there about espionage, social climbing, and basket weaving D&D is not one of them.

The whole point of D&D is to reach name-level and get a castle!

 

[ExploderWizard]

Players with your outlook don't find themselves welcome in the games I run. In games I play in I handle it in character and my characters would never trust their life adventuring with gnome jesters and halfling commoners, one of us would leave the group.

D&D is a game about delving into the dark places of the world to fight against monsters, if your character can't contribute meaningfully to the fighting or delving then your character should not be in a D&D game. There are plenty of roleplaying games out there about espionage, social climbing, and basket weaving D&D is not one of them.

My mistake. I always thought D&D was a fun way to spend time with your friends.