Exactly how important is it to start the game with a +3 ability score modifier?

[Jabborwacky]

As a new player, I often find myself reading posts from other players talking about the crunch of D&D, yet I really don't have the experience to put their assessments into proper context. Some would say you can't go wrong by starting with a +3 modifier in a key stat, but that is a very expensive proposition in terms of a wizard or cleric. Provided I plan to boost the key attribute to sixteen or higher by level 4, does it really hurt much to start out with a +2 modifier?

I understand that point buy is a general rule for D&D and not directly associated with Adventure League, per say, but I felt it would be more productive to ask where the system is used exclusively as opposed to 5th edition in general.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

I'd say crucial for a caster given that your save DC and magical attack bonuses all depend greatly on that ability modifier.

 

[Ainulindalion]

If you're focusing on dealing damage, as a physical attacker, a +3 in that stat is needed ASAP.

If you're a primary caster, a +3 in that stat is needed if you're going to focus on spells that need attack rolls or enemy saves. It is also important in the case of Cleric, Druid, Paladin (less so), and Wizard because it allows you to prepare more spells at a time.

Certain builds allow for not running up the stat as high to start. Also, builds not entirely focused on combat effectiveness (non-min/max or non-munchkin builds) can get away with not having a +3 at level 1.

I personally tend to go with 2 +3s or a +3 and 2 +2s. It is theoretically possible to have 3 +3s (Human variant with a feat that boosts a stat, half-elf provided 1 is CHA), but your other stats will suck (-1s for human, half elf actually lets you have +0 and 2 -1s.).

 

[kalani]

It is not as important as a lot of people make out - although Spell DCs should be as high as reasonably possible (esp. for a cleric, as it sucks to miss with sacred flame). With that being said, I am not one of those players who believes you should get a +5 modifiers ASAP. There are a lot of factors to weigh in, and you should make whatever decision is right for you.

Myself for example, I have a gnome wizard (with 1 level of cleric) who started with a +3 Int modfiier. At wizard 4th level (character level 5) I took "Lucky" as it fit the character concept, bumping Int to +4 at 8th level (character level 9), and then taking "War Caster" at 12th level (character level 13). Some may argue that I hampered my characters efficiency, but I found that my decisions not only helped flesh out my character concept, but brought a different dimension to his efficiency. You don't know how many times the "Lucky" feat especially, was the difference between success and disaster for the entire party.... In those particular situations, it was more valuable than simply having an extra +1.

 

[Anthraxus]

I have an odd off-stats-for-race PC, a Drow Cleric/Wizard Multiclass- 14's in INT and WIS, but also better AC/HP/Saves because I spread out my stats. I haven't found her underpowered, but I will be adding +2 to INT at 4th level Wizard for slightly better spell DC's.

 

[Jabborwacky]

Thanks for the feedback, everyone! The general impression I'm getting is that a +3 is useful, but not necessarily required immediately at the start. So a tiefling cleric is still very doable even though it doesn't have any ability score synergy with the class.

I have an odd off-stats-for-race PC, a Drow Cleric/Wizard Multiclass- 14's in INT and WIS, but also better AC/HP/Saves because I spread out my stats. I haven't found her underpowered, but I will be adding +2 to INT at 4th level Wizard for slightly better spell DC's.

I have a similar situation with my first cleric concept. He's a half-elf life cleric with a 15 in str and wis, and a 13 in con. I plan to boost the con and wis by one at 4th level to get better bonuses. It's also providing the opportunity to make a decision as to whether I want to focus on melee or spellcasting.

 

[kalani]

I am particularly fond of Mountain Dwarf Wizards (despite the fact that they too only get a +2 Int bonus)

 

[Ainulindalion]

I have a plan for a Halfling Divination Wizard with the Lucky feat just for purposes of screwing with DMs. But he/she also won't have a +3 INT at level 1. Or until level 8, actually.

 

[flametitan]

I am particularly fond of Mountain Dwarf Wizards (despite the fact that they too only get a +2 Int bonus)

It's a nice combo, especially when you DM in AL, as the DM rewards remove the biggest disadvantage (Not actually starting with armour). It might not be the ultimate optimization dream, but it can be a pretty solid build if you want to be effective.

If it wasn't for the fact that the cert said to me "dragonborn with darkvision goggles," I'd have made that combo myself.

 

[Tyranthraxus]

Generally Ill only have one stat at +3. Another may become so later at the level 4 bump.I generally have more well rounded stats through my character than really high and really low stuff.

 

[NeverLucky]

Personally, I would not build a character that does not start with +3 in their primary stat, unless the concept absolutely does not work without a particular race/class combo, and even then, I'd take a hard look at the concept to see if it's worth it. The way 5e's ability score increases work means that having a lower primary stat will haunt you (that is, weaken you significantly) for all 20 levels. If my ranger starts with 15 Dexterity, I will have a lower attack and damage bonus than my potential at least until 12th level, after which I will have one fewer feat than I would otherwise for the rest of my levels (or a lower secondary stat, in classes like paladin or barbarian). Every +1 matters in 5e, especially at lower levels, and feats are very powerful once you've maxed out your primary stat, so you're giving up a big amount of power at the start, and that power gap doesn't really narrow no matter how high you level.

If feats weren't allowed, the power gap difference would actually shrink at higher levels, since +2 to a secondary stat doesn't provide as much of a power boost compared to a feat for most builds (paladins, barbarians, etc excepted), but that's not applicable to AL. This is also why rolling for ability scores is a terrible idea in 5e: if a character starts with 18 in a stat (due to rolling 16+ and picking the right race), they will have a massive power boost from the beginning that translates into more feats than everyone else later on. Thankfully, rolling stats is banned in AL (for numerous reasons).

The are a few feats which I consider worth taking over boosting my primary stat early on (Sharpshooter, GWM, etc), but if my character wants one of those feats, I will almost certainly pick variant human in order to have them without delaying my stat progression.

 

[TwinPeaksGuy]

see http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...ugren)/page2&p=6746674&viewfull=1#post6746674

there's actually a pretty broad spell selection available even if your casting stat is +0 or +1. +3 is nice work if you can get it, but it's not the end of the world.

 

[Ganymede81]

Naw, you don't need a +3 in a stat. Do you really think your contribution to the group will be hamstrung if you do one less point of damage, or your attack roll is one lower? Absolutely not, especially considering that, by foregoing the +3, you likely boosted another stat that can help close the gap in some way.

 

[RCanine]

I was interested in trying some oddball race/class combos, and started working on a guide for spellcasters interested in suboptimal casting stats. What I discovered is that there are a TON of spells that require neither a saving throw nor attack modifier. I'm categorizing spells alphabetically, and I've got almost 100 entries and I'm not even to "F" yet.

Now, there are a lot of asterisks to this: almost none of these spells do damage, and many of them enable your allies. More often than not, AL adventures are about how many HP you can burn through before you die or run out of (IRL) time. But there are still a lot of useful things in that list.

Remember that +1 to hit/save DC increases your hit chance to 5% higher than it was; mathematically, this means that against an AC 14 creature, you'll hit 50% of the time instead of 55% of the time -- a +3 ability modifier would give you +10% hit rate. The value of this changes significantly based on what you face; an 18 AC monster will be 30% -> 35% or +16% hit rate while an AC 10 creature is 70% -> 75% or only +7% hit rate. This change in hit rate becomes less noticeable the better your chances, so if you have other ways to improve your hit rate (darkness shenanigans, archery fighting style, reckless attack) you'll mitigate this a bit.

To think about it another way, you have a 5% chance per attack that your 14 stat relative to a 16 stat will matter—95% of the time, you would have achieved exactly the same outcome regardless of +2 or +3.

Similarly, remember that there's an opportunity cost to taking a 16 stat. If, for example, taking a 14 in your spellcasting stat lets you get a 16 in Dexterity, that means the 5% chance of spellcasts mattering is exchanged for 5% chance of dodging a fireball, balancing on a tightrope or beating a monster in initiative that you otherwise wouldn't.

In the end, you're probably not going to notice a +1 here or there, especially if the value you get in exchange is quite high. It really depends on what's important to you in how you play. But if the only thing you care about is how much damage you do in a white-room simulation, then a 16-stat at level 1 will always be superior.

 

[devlin1]

see http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...ugren)/page2&p=6746674&viewfull=1#post6746674

there's actually a pretty broad spell selection available even if your casting stat is +0 or +1.

Indeed -- I have a 6th-level Eldritch Knight with a 10 Int. He mostly uses his slots for shield and magic missile.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

If you plan on multi-classing your character, then starting out with that 16 in your main stat will make a difference on when you can add that second class, since you may need to wait til you can up the required stats for adding that new class.

Also, even though AL requires the use of point buy, I hate having any stats that provide negative modifiers, so I tend to have slightly sub-optimal characters when compared to the min-maxers.

 

[Byakugan]

I see it differently.

Normal characters have a +3, even most pregens. That translates to +5 to hit.

A player who starts with a +2 instead is 20% worse than the other guys in the -main- thing that matters ie damaging the bad guys. You are effectively 4 levels behind everyone in terms of base combat stats.

It might mathematically be a 5% shift in odds on any individual roll, but you are almost certainly bringing that stat to bear a huge amount of your career. Also its not just to hit, but also to damage for martial classes.

For a wizard. You are rarely going to utilize a bump in strength. Even if you are subjected to a strength save/check, you are still probably failing it. You are not the guy that should be trying to kick the doors in. But at a minimum you should be using cantrips in most combats. The same goes for charisma...if there isn't a party member who uses charisma then you just accept the party mostly will be bad in social situations.

 

[Cascade]

If feats weren't allowed, the power gap difference would actually shrink at higher levels, since +2 to a secondary stat doesn't provide as much of a power boost compared to a feat for most builds (paladins, barbarians, etc excepted), but that's not applicable to AL. This is also why rolling for ability scores is a terrible idea in 5e: if a character starts with 18 in a stat (due to rolling 16+ and picking the right race), they will have a massive power boost from the beginning that translates into more feats than everyone else later on. Thankfully, rolling stats is banned in AL (for numerous reasons).

The are a few feats which I consider worth taking over boosting my primary stat early on (Sharpshooter, GWM, etc), but if my character wants one of those feats, I will almost certainly pick variant human in order to have them without delaying my stat progression.

This is really the meat of the discussion. Feats can be so powerful and work with such synergy, the +3 is sorta required. I think especially for open play or conventions; 3 and 4 person groups can be very difficult (you have to pull more than your own) and that extra +1 can really make a difference.

 

[KahlessNestor]

The difference of a +1 to hit in this edition is much less important than it was in some previous editions. I like 5e because a suboptimal character can be effective. I have a longspear fighter with 15 Str and 16 Dex because I wanted the higher AC and initiative and to try and make Oberyn Martel, who seems more dexy than strength and he has worked just fine. Most things you fight in low levels in AL have AC around 14 or 15, so +1 doesn't make much difference.

 

[Steve_MND]

I have a plan for a Halfling Divination Wizard with the Lucky feat just for purposes of screwing with DMs. But he/she also won't have a +3 INT at level 1. Or until level 8, actually.

I have one of those exact characters, and it's fun. He's a statistician, so all his spells and abilities (he's multiclass) are about providing advantage/disadvantage, etc. Not the most optimized character, but fun to play regardless. "The Master of Luck and Death knows all and sees all, within the standard deviation!"