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

[Bill Zebub]

Ideally I think you need a monster with a lot of hit points, but a terrible chance to hit (I know they're out there, I just can't think of one off the top of my head). Put Starsky and Hutch in solo combat with the monster, calculating how many misses become hits, and at what point the +1 damage per hit matters (assuming the monster can't put them down before they win).

Well, yeah, the +1 becomes more meaningful against higher ACs.

I don't need a monster for solo combat: that's the whole point of fighting them against each other. Each is the other's monster. I just make sure they have identical AC and HP.

With 128hp and AC 20, Hutch wins 83% of the time. The longer the fight goes on the more time the swinginess has time to level out. In other words, at infinite HP Hutch will always win.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The effect of str on damage (or other ability score as appropriate) is not a constant. Using a dagger, going from a +0 to a +1 bonus, the increase in average damage is +40%. Using a greatsword, going from +4 to +5, the increase is only 9%.

Conclusion: initial analysis is far to situational to be relevant.

 

[James Gasik]

Well, yeah, the +1 becomes more meaningful against higher ACs.

I don't need a monster for solo combat: that's the whole point of fighting them against each other. Each is the other's monster. I just make sure they have identical AC and HP.

With 128hp and AC 20, Hutch wins 83% of the time.

I just meant, you could demonstrate how many turns it takes Starsky to win vs. Hutch against an actual opponent. 5e isn't meant to use PC's as a metric, just look at how monsters are designed to see that in action- an Archmage who is an 18th level caster is a CR 12, and a Gladiator with over 100 hp is a mere CR 5. If Starsky takes 9 rounds to beat a monster, and Hutch needs 8 or less, that's where you start going "oh, well! I guess +1 Strength really does matter!"

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I just meant, you could demonstrate how many turns it takes Starsky to win vs. Hutch against an actual opponent. 5e isn't meant to use PC's as a metric, just look at how monsters are designed to see that in action- an Archmage who is an 18th level caster is a CR 12, and a Gladiator with over 100 hp is a mere CR 5. If Starsky takes 9 rounds to beat a monster, and Hutch needs 8 or less, that's where you start going "oh, well! I guess +1 Strength really does matter!"

But if you are fighting, say, kobolds, then they die in one hit, irrespective of damage. The question then becomes, how many can you kill in one round?

 

[Bill Zebub]

If Starsky takes 9 rounds to beat a monster, and Hutch needs 8 or less, that's where you start going "oh, well! I guess +1 Strength really does matter!"

You would think.

Some people seem willing to go through all sorts of illogical contortions to avoid acknowledging that.

 

[James Gasik]

You would think.

Some people seem willing to go through all sorts of illogical contortions to avoid acknowledging that.

There's a lot of misconceptions about the game, I've noticed, that are strongly held opinions. You can't challenge an opinion with mere facts.

 

[Bill Zebub]

But if you are fighting, say, kobolds, then they die in one hit, irrespective of damage. The question then becomes, how many can you kill in one round?

Not exactly. Kobolds have 5hp. Which means the 15 Strength fighter needs to roll a 3 or higher on the damage die, which means a 25% chance (with a longsword) of not killing the kobold. The 16 Strength fighter only needs a 2, which means a 12.5% chance of not killing the kobold.

Clearly the best solution for exterminating kobolds is 16+ Strength and a Greatsword. Or even an AD&D broadsword doing 2d4. Anything where you get to roll two damage dice.

 

[James Gasik]

But if you are fighting, say, kobolds, then they die in one hit, irrespective of damage. The question then becomes, how many can you kill in one round?

Other than maybe you turn a few misses into hits, yeah. But both kinds of combats exist, right?

 

[James Gasik]

Oh I do need to issue a retraction- Bless won't affect my sample party in whole, it's limited to 3 targets.

 

[Maxperson]

It does show performance over time. How many attack rolls are you going to make before you get an opportunity to raise an ability score by 1 to achieve parity, if one guy has a 15 and another has a 16? How many misses turn into hits, how many times will that extra point per hit matter?

The answer to that question is 1 out of every 20 attacks. Combats in my experience typically last 3-5 rounds, so I've been calling them at 4 rounds. That's one miss turned into a hit every 5 combats until you reach extra attack. Then it's one miss turned into a hit every 2.5 combats. This is a really low amount of damage added. Then you have say 11 other hits that are all getting +1 damage, but those hits are also spread out over those combats, which also amounts to next to no extra damage per fight.

When you're in a fight with a group of PCs all doing damage against a group of enemies, that 2 extra damage a fight and one extra hit every 2.5 to 5 fights just isn't going to be noticeable.

See? Useful data! You need a larger sample size to see the difference between 15 and 16 Strength, but remember, Strength applies to two die rolls, not one, attack and damage. The benefit may seem small, but in aggregate, it's definitely present.

Fights don't happen in aggregate, though. They happen individually. So yes, over 20 levels you are looking at hundreds of extra points of damage, and that was all in a fight or two the fighter would be kicking some serious ass. However, each individual fight isn't even going to notice the minute amounts of extra damage being inflicted. So while the aggregate damage over time and the percentage increase both seem very impressive, the reality is that the damage increase is trivial. It just doesn't affect things more than once in a blue moon.