Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ECMO3" data-source="post: 9275009" data-attributes="member: 7030563">No you don't, at least not if the DM follows the guidelines for difficulty.5E is extremely forgiving and because of that a comparitavely&nbsp; low roll character is mathematically still competent.Not true and I routinely play martials at high level that never get beyond a 16 in their attack stat, including several 20th level games.&nbsp; As a matter of fact I personally usually do not making my attack stat higher than a 16 at all on a martial, I am usually boosting a spell casting stat first, or taking feats that give me spells.This is completely false in 5E.&nbsp; It may have been true&nbsp; in other versions, but it is no longer the case.&quot;Behind the curve&quot; is not the same as &quot;incompetent&quot; and if that Paladin really wants &quot;power&quot; she should put all her ASIs into Charisma, because spells and abilities beat weapons in 5E all day long in combat and spell casting stats beat Strength and generally beat dexterity out of combat.There is a mathmatical standard out there about the &quot;baseline&quot; damage being a Warlock who starts with a 16 Charisma and Hex and takes ASIs at 4th and 8th level.&nbsp; That is considered the &quot;normal&quot; or average damage for a damage dealer.&nbsp; The 14 fighter you mention can easily do half of that baseline all day long and that is without even trying to optimize.&nbsp; If you optimize that fighter who starts with a 14 strength and dexterity will equal or beat that baseline.And in this discussion let's remember we are talking about damage which is an easy metric to compare characters but a poor one to measure power as doing damage is generally weak in combat compared to effects or control and is useless out of combat.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ECMO3, post: 9275009, member: 7030563"] No you don't, at least not if the DM follows the guidelines for difficulty. 5E is extremely forgiving and because of that a comparitavely low roll character is mathematically still competent. Not true and I routinely play martials at high level that never get beyond a 16 in their attack stat, including several 20th level games. As a matter of fact I personally usually do not making my attack stat higher than a 16 at all on a martial, I am usually boosting a spell casting stat first, or taking feats that give me spells. This is completely false in 5E. It may have been true in other versions, but it is no longer the case. "Behind the curve" is not the same as "incompetent" and if that Paladin really wants "power" she should put all her ASIs into Charisma, because spells and abilities beat weapons in 5E all day long in combat and spell casting stats beat Strength and generally beat dexterity out of combat. There is a mathmatical standard out there about the "baseline" damage being a Warlock who starts with a 16 Charisma and Hex and takes ASIs at 4th and 8th level. That is considered the "normal" or average damage for a damage dealer. The 14 fighter you mention can easily do half of that baseline all day long and that is without even trying to optimize. If you optimize that fighter who starts with a 14 strength and dexterity will equal or beat that baseline. And in this discussion let's remember we are talking about damage which is an easy metric to compare characters but a poor one to measure power as doing damage is generally weak in combat compared to effects or control and is useless out of combat. [/QUOTE]

Verification