Destil
Explorer
I played with an elf trident and shield fighter with the same spread and he was an amazingly effective defender. Fighters also get a bit of a buy with their +1 to hit and ability to mark on a miss.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Is an 18/19/20 an absolute must?
- Thread starter TerraDave
- Start date
I played with an elf trident and shield fighter with the same spread and he was an amazingly effective defender. Fighters also get a bit of a buy with their +1 to hit and ability to mark on a miss.
koesherbacon
First Post
My Halfling Cleric began at level 1 with a 16 in Wis and a 15 in Cha. Sure, I don't do a lot of damage, but when I use healing word I still give a good boost to the HP healed.
Turn undead also works very well for me. Never had a big problem with it.
So, in my very limited experience, I find that having a 16 as the highest ability score is quite sufficient to have a fun game with friends. It might not be optimized, but it's more fun this way for me.
Turn undead also works very well for me. Never had a big problem with it.
So, in my very limited experience, I find that having a 16 as the highest ability score is quite sufficient to have a fun game with friends. It might not be optimized, but it's more fun this way for me.
Lord Ernie
First Post
Just to throw another character into the discussion: our party has an Elven orb wizard, starting with 16 int and 18 wis, who has no real problems hitting, and with proper usage of Elven Arcane Accuracy and his character's amazing Daily Powers, is indeed often enough the MVP of the party. Said party includes a rogue that started with 18 dex, and a fighter that started with 20 str.
EDIT: Clarification
EDIT: Clarification
Last edited:
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
There is one other thing to consider - it sure sucks to miss often, but it sure rocks to be missed very often, too. Especially once monsters don't just deal damage, but also conditions.
The points you didn't spent to get an ability score of 16 to 18 you might have spend on abilities that boost your defenses
Of course, there are 4 defenses to "cover" with your ability scores, and one defense is covered also by your primary ability score, so their are probably diminished returns involved - but so are for boosting high stats.
I suppose an alternative point buy system could be created to model this.
The points you didn't spent to get an ability score of 16 to 18 you might have spend on abilities that boost your defenses
Of course, there are 4 defenses to "cover" with your ability scores, and one defense is covered also by your primary ability score, so their are probably diminished returns involved - but so are for boosting high stats.
I suppose an alternative point buy system could be created to model this.
DracoSuave
First Post
1) Your primary stat at 18 (post racial) is probably a good idea. Higher than that and you're made of paper, but yeah. It's not necessary going to kill you to have a 16 (either post racial, or without racial) and, in fact, -1 to hit isn't going to get too much notice from you over your carreer.
Where I think Char-Op mentalities go wrong is in the belief that your -secondary- "must" also be an 18 or even a 16.
Take a Sorcerer, for instance. The difference between 16 and 18 in your primary is decent. You hit more often for a bit more damage. That's multiplicating, meaning that your attack effectiveness is quadratic in relation to your score... it's a function of the ax^2 + bx + c variety.
In your secondary, however, the difference isn't even as close to pronounced. It generally only means a reduction in total damage on a linear scale, but it -doesn't- mean enough of a difference to make a difference in rounds.
Think of it this way. Given a choice between a 18 and a 16 in your secondary, ask yourself how often combats have come down to a single point of damage difference? It doesn't happen enough to justify the claim that an 18 is 'mandatory' in your secondary.
And outside of damage, the benefits from secondaries suffer diminishing returns. Being able to shift 1 square vs 2 squares is a huge difference, but at the top end, being able to shift 7 squares vs 8 squares is not enough of an issue.
Where I think Char-Op mentalities go wrong is in the belief that your -secondary- "must" also be an 18 or even a 16.
Take a Sorcerer, for instance. The difference between 16 and 18 in your primary is decent. You hit more often for a bit more damage. That's multiplicating, meaning that your attack effectiveness is quadratic in relation to your score... it's a function of the ax^2 + bx + c variety.
In your secondary, however, the difference isn't even as close to pronounced. It generally only means a reduction in total damage on a linear scale, but it -doesn't- mean enough of a difference to make a difference in rounds.
Think of it this way. Given a choice between a 18 and a 16 in your secondary, ask yourself how often combats have come down to a single point of damage difference? It doesn't happen enough to justify the claim that an 18 is 'mandatory' in your secondary.
And outside of damage, the benefits from secondaries suffer diminishing returns. Being able to shift 1 square vs 2 squares is a huge difference, but at the top end, being able to shift 7 squares vs 8 squares is not enough of an issue.
Yeah I think the 18/18 assumption is a poor one to make, and the narrow view to try and achieve that can even eliminate some fantastic racial options, or possibly feat options.
In some cases, a secondary 18 is good, but there are a lot of characters who can very easily get by with a 16 or even 14. As a matter of fact, in the three games I'm currently playing, I don't think there are any characters who started with two 18's (though one is a paragon level game, so we have a lot of people who started with odd stats, the 17/15/13 spread). The only place I've seen characters with two 18's are LFR games.
DracoSuave
First Post
I mean, yeah, an Orbizard minmaxed to Orb-lock a combatant with a save-or-"die" spell WILL want an 18 wisdom, but most min-maxed builds don't need -that- level of activity.
Str Paladins don't need a lion's share in Charisma for DC, because they can use Strength to add to that, and Wisdom is probably more useful in the long term.
Str Paladins don't need a lion's share in Charisma for DC, because they can use Strength to add to that, and Wisdom is probably more useful in the long term.
Really you should be having an 18 or so at least (post racial) in your most important stat, which is usualy your primary stat. I got one character (a swarm druid), that I consiter con to be more important then wis, even though wis is his primary stat. The reasons is I get +1 DR, and +1 AC, and +1 healing surge, and +2 HP, per con modifier. That +1DR is so worth a drop of -1 to hit, and -1 to damage, especialy when I try to get hit (it is after all the point of the character). I ended up going 19 con, 17 wis, so after level 4 I am 20, 18 (with a 5 stackable DR to melee and ranged attacks). And 6DR just as I hit paragon when I can have 3 daily's that give con mod dr for an encounter so 3 encounters a day I get 12+ DR to melee and ranged attacks.
The Human Target
Adventurer
No it isn't.
For the reasons mentioned.
I've got an eladrin bard and a dwarf artificer in my game with 16s in their prime stats.
They're doing fine, even in some tough encounters.
And they didn't even go wild with secondary ability score synergy.
But this thread makes me hope more than ever that 5E does away with racial ability adjustments.
For the reasons mentioned.
I've got an eladrin bard and a dwarf artificer in my game with 16s in their prime stats.
They're doing fine, even in some tough encounters.
And they didn't even go wild with secondary ability score synergy.
But this thread makes me hope more than ever that 5E does away with racial ability adjustments.
MadLordOfMilk
First Post
16 can work just fine; however, it's generally not optimal.
(Though, if you already have a buttload of +hit bonuses, in that case a 16 might even be a better choice. Every point of +attack is worth less [in a relative context] than the last one. Additionally, every point of defense is worth more than the last, quite possibly outweighing the attack bonus.)
(Though, if you already have a buttload of +hit bonuses, in that case a 16 might even be a better choice. Every point of +attack is worth less [in a relative context] than the last one. Additionally, every point of defense is worth more than the last, quite possibly outweighing the attack bonus.)
Similar Threads
