D&D 5E What is +1 Strength worth?

[James Gasik]

Crits will slightly shorten the fighting, slightly decreasing the value of Str.

Failure on a 1 would negate that, but it’s not an official rule.

Uh, yeah it is. Page 194 of the PHB.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If the conclusion is that this sort of difference is offensive capacity is unacceptable, then I feel we also must conclude that the ability score system is an abject failure. Because if everyone must have the same bonus in their main score, then why even pretend that it is a choice, why even pretend that there could be individual variance?

I really don't like this conclusion. I don't want all the fighters to have the same strength, all the wizards the same int etc. But it also probably is fair to say that what you get from not bumping your mains stat is not in absolute sense 'worth' the trade-off. But if we wanted to fix this, then we should ask what would be worth it? What should you get that you would consider forgoing that bump in the main stat? How many points of other ability scores should you get, what sort of features would be of equal value?

 

[Bill Zebub]

what about a Dex based fighter with a rapier and light armor against a str based fighter with a longsword?
the dex increases WAY more than str and still with a finesse weapon adds to attack and damage.

It’s an interesting question but not really what I’m trying to answer here.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Uh, yeah it is. Page 194 of the PHB.

Oh, duh. Huh.

Well, in any event, the two rules effectively cancel in this simulation.

 

[The Old Crow]

Now Starsky won 67% of the time.

Now I am confused. Shouldn't that be Hutch?

 

[Bill Zebub]

If the conclusion is that this sort of difference is offensive capacity is unacceptable, then I feel we also must conclude that the ability score system is an abject failure. Because if everyone must have the same bonus in their main score, then why even pretend that it is a choice, why even pretend that there could be individual variance?

I really don't like this conclusion. I don't want all the fighters to have the same strength, all the wizards the same int etc. But it also probably is fair to say that what you get from not bumping your mains stat is not in absolute sense 'worth' the trade-off. But if we wanted to fix this, then we should ask what would be worth it? What should you get that you would consider forgoing that bump in the main stat? How many points of other ability scores should you get, what sort of features would be of equal value?

Yeah I don’t think you understand the goal here. If some people want to use it to say, “You must have a 16 or you can’t play with us” then they are jerks. Full stop.

Im addressing this conversation:
“I want a 16 because I want to do lots of damage.”
“You don’t need a 16; the +1 doesn’t make much difference.”
“Yes it does, look.”
“But if you had +1 Cha maybe you could avoid the whole fight!”
“Maybe, and that’s fine, but that’s not the character I want to build.”
“But if you had +1 Con you would survive longer.”
“Sure, but I like doing lots of damage…”

Etc.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Now I am confused. Shouldn't that be Hutch?

Not when only Starsky uses 2nd Wind. It has more impact than the +1.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

If the conclusion is that this sort of difference is offensive capacity is unacceptable, then I feel we also must conclude that the ability score system is an abject failure.

yeah... that annoys me too.

If the assumption of the designers is "Start with 16 attack stat increase to 18 at level 4 and 20 at level 8" then why not just build that +3/4/5 into prof?

its worse still because there is nothing about Strength that says "Can hit more accurately" by any common understanding

 

[James Gasik]

If the conclusion is that this sort of difference is offensive capacity is unacceptable, then I feel we also must conclude that the ability score system is an abject failure. Because if everyone must have the same bonus in their main score, then why even pretend that it is a choice, why even pretend that there could be individual variance?

I really don't like this conclusion. I don't want all the fighters to have the same strength, all the wizards the same int etc. But it also probably is fair to say that what you get from not bumping your mains stat is not in absolute sense 'worth' the trade-off. But if we wanted to fix this, then we should ask what would be worth it? What should you get that you would consider forgoing that bump in the main stat? How many points of other ability scores should you get, what sort of features would be of equal value?

You know as much as I'd hate to be rid of the ability score system, maybe it should go away. The game weights certain ability scores higher based on your class and how you build your character. That's nothing new, certainly, but I mean, this is why people don't like rolling for ability scores. A disparity between two character's primary attributes might not be balanced by an advantage in a secondary attribute.

Like say you have 14 Strength and I have 16 Strength. But you have 16 Dexterity and I have 14 Dexterity. The difference in AC is nonexistent since either one of us could wear medium armor, and wearing light armor isn't going to get you any major benefit.

We can have the same chance to hit and damage, but one of us is limited to using lighter weapons that deal less damage. One of us has slightly better initiative (matters only in round 1), Dex saves, and Dex skill checks, but the other has better Str saves, carry capacity and Str skill checks- which both attributes should have equal utility but don't.

But while you may not be asked to make an ability save, if your game involves lots of combats, the difference in weapon damage might matter in the long run.

There's a lot of variables here, and that's just Str vs. Dex. Str vs. Con, for example, is only going to matter if you regularly make Con saves or are a caster- because the benefit of 1 extra hit point per level (and +1 to your Second Wind) could be negligible compared to better performance- the game weighs offense and defense differently, which I'm not a fan of, but in other threads I keep getting told "that's the way 5e is, deal with it". : )

 

[CleverNickName]

I really don't like this conclusion. I don't want all the fighters to have the same strength, all the wizards the same int etc.

I agree completely...everyone having the same ability scores, for purely math reasons, is one of my biggest gripes with the game. I do everything on my end to fix this, like avoiding point-buy and arrays, but I can't remember the last time I saw a character that didn't have 20 in their key ability score by 4th level. The assumption that "I must start with an 18 in <whatever> to be effective" is absolutely false, but it's still very strong among players.