D&D General How do you like your ASIs?

[billd91]

I must have missed this. Thank you.

You didn't miss much. For the expected damage values being shown, just under +1 damage works out to a 20-30% increase in damage. The % difference makes it look much larger than it is in absolute terms.

 

[Maxperson]

At each discrete occurrence, yes; but over the long run trivial adds up to being not trivial.

No. It remains trivial. Hit points for monsters at 5th-8th level are averaging 60-120. By the time you run the number over the long haul to 1000 hit points of damage, that will be spread out over 500+ monsters with 50,000+ hit points between them. You're still only going to be doing a few points of damage extra.

Do 5 points of damage instead of 4 once, who cares. Do it 8 times, however, and you've in effect saved yourself the time that two extra attacks would have taken; and that saved time can sometimes be the difference between living and dying.

Against the same creature sure, but do it 8 times against 8 different creatures and you haven't saved squat. You MAY have gotten lucky and dropped something to 0 instead of 1, but that's rare.

 

[Lanefan]

No. It remains trivial. Hit points for monsters at 5th-8th level are averaging 60-120. By the time you run the number over the long haul to 1000 hit points of damage, that will be spread out over 500+ monsters with 50,000+ hit points between them. You're still only going to be doing a few points of damage extra.

Against the same creature sure, but do it 8 times against 8 different creatures and you haven't saved squat. You MAY have gotten lucky and dropped something to 0 instead of 1, but that's rare.

I was assuming against the same creature; and as 8 x 5 is only 40 and you're giving a 60-120 range above, I clearly undershot in my estimate.

But my point remains, and I think remains valid: a 20% or 25% difference adds up. A 90-point monster - the middle of your range above - is going to go down after 18 hits if you're doing 5 per hit but it'll take 23 hits (the last doing but 2 points to finish it off) at 4 per hit.

And in the time it takes to get those extra five hits in your PC - or someone else's - could die.

Don't get me wrong - this is way more analysis of this sort of thing than I usually care to do and not something I usually give much of an eff about. All I'm trying to point out is that what might seem trivial sometimes isn't, when one looks deeper.

 

[Maxperson]

I was assuming against the same creature; and as 8 x 5 is only 40 and you're giving a 60-120 range above, I clearly undershot in my estimate.

But my point remains, and I think remains valid: a 20% or 25% difference adds up. A 90-point monster - the middle of your range above - is going to go down after 18 hits if you're doing 5 per hit but it'll take 23 hits (the last doing but 2 points to finish it off) at 4 per hit.

The problem with that is that it's a group of heroes all attacking. You're only going to hit it 2-4 times.

Don't get me wrong - this is way more analysis of this sort of thing than I usually care to do and not something I usually give much of an eff about. All I'm trying to point out is that what might seem trivial sometimes isn't, when one looks deeper.

I've looked.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Basic mathematics FTW.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Then all were optimized to some degree. Some people here view optimization as equating to power gaming, so the entire scale of optimization are just grades of power gaming. I don't view it that way. To me optimization is fine, but power gaming is when the optimization rises enough to become disruptive to the game.

And this amount depends on the GM, the playstyle (if you fight once per session, the damage difference will be felt less than with five fights per session), and the individual behavior (a few super optimizers will be more disruptive in a group of badly designed chars than if everyone is optimized...)

I also feel that it's natural to want to play "heroes who are good at doing their thing". When the range of ability is 3-18, having 12-13 s average, including the +1 invariant human bonus, so 14-15 is slightly above average and competent start at 16, good at 18 and best of the best at 20. And who would be "slightly better than average at being a warrior?"

 

[Lyxen]

As has been shown many times, that little 5% means 20-30% more damage, if we're talking about melee combat.

No, it does not. This is only valid when the law of large numbers is in effect, and this will never happen in one given fight, or even over many fights. 5e fights are very short, at best, a given character will do what, 5 attack rolls ? This is totally insignificant compared to the swinginess of a d20 and all the other factors that will influence a fight (who you are really fighting, what others do, tactics, critical hits, etc.).

Moreover, for the important rolls, again the luck of the roll will trump any small modifier like this.

As a side note, as it's less important, 5e is also designed for the rolls to be easy, there are few high ACs, which means that the +1 to his is relatively insignificant (compared to previous editions where the chances to hit where smaller and fights longer).

However, it's also true that an observer who didn't know what was on the character sheet and couldn't see the dice rolls, and only observed the outcomes...that is, whether or not they hit, and how much damage they do...would have a very hard time accurately determining whether the modifier was +2 or +3 (unless the player rolled max damage).

Yes, indeed.

 

[Lyxen]

Here you roll the same set of dice (we usually use 5d6k3) six times, then during the rearranging step you also take into account what (if anything) your species will do to what number you're putting where.

We did not find this satisfying, because it makes a major difference between rolling 2d6 for some stats and 4d6 for others. What we usually do is roll a few sets in order and choose from there.

 

[clearstream]

Yes. But 1 point is 25% of 4. Increase an average of 4 damage to an average of 5 damage and you have a 25% increase. It sounds big when people put it into percentages, but it's ultimately very trivial.

For me, it is insufficient to frame this only in terms of DPR. I normally notice in game consequences such as

• A bard will have an easily noticed additional use of inspiration each rest
• A barbarian taking Con will have an easily noticed additional 5 HP at 5th level
• Taking Wis, a character will have an easily noticed higher passive Wisdom (Perception)
• A wizard taking Int will have an easily noticed additional spell in mind
• A fighter taking Strength will always jump further

And in combat, I usually notice consequences like

• A 5th level warlock will have an easily noticed additional point of damage on each bolt
• Characters in light and medium armor have a noticeably higher AC

Two additional factors really crystallise it for me. One is that we quite often have two players with the same class, and the difference between them can be very distinct - for example our dragonborn bard versus our half-elf - using fixed ASIs that is. And second this is not pick one, it is very frequently pick two abilities to be bumped higher.

 

[Minigiant]

No. It remains trivial. Hit points for monsters at 5th-8th level are averaging 60-120. By the time you run the number over the long haul to 1000 hit points of damage, that will be spread out over 500+ monsters with 50,000+ hit points between them. You're still only going to be doing a few points of damage extra.

You could hit 1000 HP at level 6 (with an inept DM).

The real issue is the semi bloated HP along with the 6-8 encounter per day game design.
A DM who uses a lot of high CR enemies has tons of HP. The DMG has you run through an expected 900-1200 HP a day if you follow the chart at level 6. If you fight 6 cyclopsi, you are burning through 828 HP. Even if you go with lower CR monsters and throw in trash, the HP per encounter goes from 75-150 HP 6 to 8 times.

Once you realize this as a play, it nudges your damage dealers to want as much damage as possible. And if your tanks rely on scores, it nudges them as well.

It isn't required. However after level 6 and 7, you might really feel the need to buff your primary if you didn't start with a 16 nor buff it by then.