NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Swarmkeeper" data-source="post: 8459678" data-attributes="member: 6921763">I appreciate your analysis.  +2 vs +3 is the discussion point because without ASI the most a PC could have in their main stat at character generation is 15 (+2 mod) and with ASI they could have a 16 or 17 (+3 mod).  Presumptions include point buy (or standard array) and putting your high score into your main stat.So an additional BI per long rest between +2 and +3 - that could be noticeable in the course of an adventuring day.1 extra use of these things per long rest.  That checks.Not sure if I follow your math here.  The difference between saving against a DC 12 vs a DC 13 is exactly 5% (assuming an enemy had to roll to save).  My argument is that this is just not noticeable in gameplay if it happens on average 1 out of 20 times.  The enemy is far more likely to fail or succeed handily than fail/succeed by 1.Again, just 5% difference between +2 and +3 - when rolls are even required.  Your possible/not possible threshold is DC of 22 vs 23 which is approaching very difficult territory.  Good thing to save that BI for!The bard does not prepare spells.  They know what they know and can cast them according to their spell slots.  This argument would apply to a Wizard, Cleric, or Druid, though - although number of prepared spells is driven far more by caster level as play progresses.  A one spell difference in prepared spells due to a +2 vs +3, I would argue, is not meaningful at low levels where spell slots are the main limiter.The question was:  do you see a noticeable and meaningful difference in gameplay at the table between a +2 and a +3 modifier.  The answer, after my critique of your analysis, seems to be: "sorta" in that the Bard has 1 fewer BIs to dole out (or use to fuel other abilities).</blockquote>

Verification