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

[James Gasik]

And this is why I found your initial computations interesting in terms of impact, if you are looking at the purely mechanical effect. Whether it's actually relevant to games being played is that part that I dispute, though.

Well it might not be relevant to you, that's true. But it's supposedly relevant to other people. Personally, I believe that people play games a lot differently than they claim to, but that's neither here nor there.

 

[BenTheFerg]

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!"

Combine a +1Str bonus to attack & damage with the feat Polearm Master, then you have another attack gaining that bonus too. It starts to stack up.
5e doesn't have the same massive bonuses you got in 3e/PF thus any bonus is powerful

 

[Fenris-77]

Well it might not be relevant to you, that's true. But it's supposedly relevant to other people. Personally, I believe that people play games a lot differently than they claim to, but that's neither here nor there.

I had a very intereating talk with my 15 year-old son about this very issue. He only plays 5E, but he understands it better than he imagines because of the way we talk, and how I talk. It took us an hour to hash out this same issue and what it came down to is that he was just talking about him and his table, and I was talking about tables generally. I have no idea what that means, but it's interesting.

 

[BenTheFerg]

Well it might not be relevant to you, that's true. But it's supposedly relevant to other people. Personally, I believe that people play games a lot differently than they claim to, but that's neither here nor there.

In the game I run, the Goliath Rune Knight is the biggest damage dealer by far, with his extra attack from the butt of his polearm & extra reach for opportunity attacks. He devastates the battle field. It is noticeable. And whilst he shines, one other player gets grumpy since they aren't doing as much damage....
Thus these discussions do matter since fighting is a 'thing' in most 5e games. Whereas in Call of Cthulhu/ Delta Green, combat is generally to be avoided! Can't think why!

 

[James Gasik]

I had a very intereating talk with my 15 year-old son about this very issue. He only plays 5E, but he understands it better than he imagines because of the way we talk, and how I talk. It took us an hour to hash out this same issue and what it came down to is that he was just talking about him and his table, and I was talking about tables generally. I have no idea what that means, but it's interesting.

Ultimately, yeah, you can't reach a consensus about the game, because every group plays it the same way. I believe this has always been the case, in every edition (and perhaps every game, look how many people follow the official rules for Monopoly or Uno, for example!). Unfortunately, discussions about the game tend to break down when D&D is apples for you, and oranges for me.

3e and 4e discussions revolved around what was actually written in the rulebooks as the only real way to discuss the game, since everything else is "in my personal house rules".

5e's...interesting take, that we should just acknowledge that there is no RAW, it's all how you play the game, has it's merits and flaws. Some don't exist, like the idea that 5e somehow "empowers DM's" (I'm sorry, I've played ttrpg's for decades. The DM never needed empowerment, he/she/fnord was going to do what they were going to do regardless of what the books say, it just comes down to what the players will put up with).

But people feel like they do, and like a magic feather, it lets them fly.

However, when it comes to talking about the game, it's a big flaw to me, since anything I say runs into the "but that's not how we play" argument.

If I say "in the games I have played, X" then I get told "you weren't playing right".

If I say, "in the game that follows all the non-optional guidelines, Y", then I get told "you should be using suboption B found on page 313A of the DMG".

 

[Fenris-77]

In the game I run, the Goliath Rune Knight is the biggest damage dealer by far, with his extra attack from the butt of his polearm & extra reach for opportunity attacks. He devastates the battle field. It is noticeable. And whilst he shines, one other player gets grumpy since they aren't doing as much damage....
Thus these discussions do matter since fighting is a 'thing' in most 5e games. Whereas in Call of Cthulhu/ Delta Green, combat is generally to be avoided! Can't think why!

The actual issue there is that the things those other players think their PCs should be good at don't get the same mechanical attention. Perils of 5E play.

 

[James Gasik]

In the game I run, the Goliath Rune Knight is the biggest damage dealer by far, with his extra attack from the butt of his polearm & extra reach for opportunity attacks. He devastates the battle field. It is noticeable. And whilst he shines, one other player gets grumpy since they aren't doing as much damage....
Thus these discussions do matter since fighting is a 'thing' in most 5e games. Whereas in Call of Cthulhu/ Delta Green, combat is generally to be avoided! Can't think why!

I've played CoC. it's because the monster is a Star Vampire and it shrugs off high explosives like nobody's business!

 

[Fenris-77]

Ultimately, yeah, you can't reach a consensus about the game, because every group plays it the same way. I believe this has always been the case, in every edition (and perhaps every game, look how many people follow the official rules for Monopoly or Uno, for example!). Unfortunately, discussions about the game tend to break down when D&D is apples for you, and oranges for me.

3e and 4e discussions revolved around what was actually written in the rulebooks as the only real way to discuss the game, since everything else is "in my personal house rules".

5e's...interesting take, that we should just acknowledge that there is no RAW, it's all how you play the game, has it's merits and flaws. Some don't exist, like the idea that 5e somehow "empowers DM's" (I'm sorry, I've played ttrpg's for decades. The DM never needed empowerment, he/she/fnord was going to do what they were going to do regardless of what the books say, it just comes down to what the players will put up with).

But people feel like they do, and like a magic feather, it lets them fly.

However, when it comes to talking about the game, it's a big flaw to me, since anything I say runs into the "but that's not how we play" argument.

If I say "in the games I have played, X" then I get told "you weren't playing right".

If I say, "in the game that follows all the non-optional guidelines, Y", then I get told "you should be using suboption B found on page 313A of the DMG".

The notion of empowerment there is just shorthand for stuff we should have made rules for but didnt.

 

[James Gasik]

The actual issue there is that the things those other players think their PCs should be good at don't get the same mechanical attention. Perils of 5E play.

Yeah basically. Guy who uses sword and shield because it's a widely effective real world strategy feels put out when his damage output suffers, and enemies just ignore his hard to hit butt and kill the Cleric.

Guy who brings a Pike into a Kobold warren succeeds because he can somehow bap you with the butt end of it every turn.

Guy who likes to use Cure spells in combat feels put out when his spells don't even come close to matching a round of attacks from a big monster.

Guy who wades into combat with Spirit Guardians and just slaps a d4 Healing Word at people who go down succeeds at being a sort of point defense system.

 

[BenTheFerg]

Except, well, you need to put the +1 there if you want the next +2 to matter, right? Actually that opens up a side discussion.

20 in an attribute. Is it worth it?

As mentioned in another post, it depends on your character build.
The Goliath Rune Knight for example, missed out on a +2Str at L4 to get Polearm Mastery. Which has been awesome!

Generally +2 to your core stat is generally a no brainer IMHO. But ....it really depends on the feat & player build & that thing called player choice/agency & roleplaying their pc.