Standard array plays favorites

[Easy_Lee]

15 14 13 12 10 8

That's the "standard" array of stats according to PHB. An average character would have these kinds of points. This massively favors some class and race combinations over others.

Casters mostly only need one strong stat and thus are unaffected. A wizard can play a gnome and start with 17 intelligence, the only stat he cares about, then put the 13 in dex and the 14 in Con. Suboptimal, but no big deal. For druids and wizards, it's the same.

Rogues and rangers are in the same boat as casters. Just max dex, and you'll be fine. But*with paladins, you run into MAD, since you really want high strength, charisma, and good con. Paladins end up starved for feats.

What about warlocks? A tome warlock is fine, and familiars aren't affected. But a blade pact warlock can't melee well with a str/dex as low as 14. He'll have to pick a race that lets him get 16 in both that and cha. Even then, the character will the stat increases for stats and not feats.

Monks and barbarians face the same problem as warlocks, monks more so since con isn't used for their unarmored defense. Needing two high stats, preferably both maxed, means he'll get one feat to work with, period.* Multi class barb monk? Forget about it.

Fighters are tricky. The stat array heavily encourages fighters to go with a dex build and either dual wield or shield. That will give them high initiative, good damage, and little enough MAD that they can pick up some feats. The bonus boosts help.

Don't even try to play a bard with stat array unless you go full caster.

Point is: the standard array heavily favors casters and dexers. Anyone with even two-stat dependency is badly hurt by not being able to focus their points. Meanwhile, they get to stare at the 12, 10, and 13 that are waster on unneeded stats.

DMs, please don't use the standard array. Point buy is the way to go.

[Chaosvii7]

DMs, please don't use the standard array. Point buy is the way to go.

You do know that the standard array IS a point-buy, right? Standard array already gives you a primary and a secondary. It's generally regarded that every character needs CON, so really every class usually only needs two stats to function. Standard gives you a 14 and a 15. Most people turn that into two 16s with a race that synergizes well with the class, and that's generally good enough out of the box.

The point buy would present similar problems with a greater potential for less functional characters - every 15 you buy, you're gonna have an 8. And if you're not buying things that have above a +1 modifier, you're generally going to suffer for the first few levels until you can pump a stat up.

Really, the solution to your problem is to use the rolling system, but I don't think the problem is as great as it's made out to be. That, and I just hate rolling for stats.

[Easy_Lee]

You do know that the standard array IS a point-buy, right? Standard array already gives you a primary and a secondary. It's generally regarded that every character needs CON, so really every class usually only needs two stats to function. Standard gives you a 14 and a 15. Most people turn that into two 16s with a race that synergizes well with the class, and that's generally good enough out of the box.

The point buy would present similar problems with a greater potential for less functional characters - every 15 you buy, you're gonna have an 8. And if you're not buying things that have above a +1 modifier, you're generally going to suffer for the first few levels until you can pump a stat up.

Really, the solution to your problem is to use the rolling system, but I don't think the problem is as great as it's made out to be. That, and I just hate rolling for stats.

27 point buy on a wood elf monk can easily yield 18s in both wisdom and dex, with an okay con. Even with -1 in the other stats, it's still preferable to standard array.

[Mr.Moron]

Stopped reading at "Starved for feats". Optional rule. Can't be starved. Bias detected. Post dismissed. Please re-frame and try again.

[archaeo]

n.b. as well that many of the classes that are most MAD are also those with the most in-class flexibility. I think this very well may be by design.

I think you also forgot about Wisdom for Rangers.

In any case, the +1 difference between an 18 and a 20, or a +2 difference between a 16 and a 20, are relatively minor bonuses that can be made up elsewhere. The tight attribute math really does allow for a lot less reliance on perfect stats unless you're striving for optimization. Obviously, a 10% difference is still meaningful, but it's a meaningfulness that I imagine will not appear extraordinary at the table for most players.

[edge2054]

Non-variant human, 14, 14, 14, 14, 14, 11.

Or for the min-maxer that wants high charisma.

Half-Elf 16, 16, 10, 10, 8, 16

Seems fine to me.

*edit* Reading comprehension for the loss.

Anyway, the standard array is a point buy. Hence my fail post above. I don't see the problem though, just use point buy?

[Daishain]

Stopped reading at "Starved for feats". Optional rule. Can't be starved. Bias detected. Post dismissed. Please re-frame and try again.
Giving the fighter, who needs ability boosts less than most other classes, nearly twice as many of the same makes absolutely no sense without feats enabled, especially since the fighter is arguably the class most in need of the special combat abilities only available via feats. It follows then that the feats disabled version is intended simply as a temporary measure to help acclimatize people not used to the system. Training wheels for the uninitiated.

Failure to recognize an obvious pattern detected, Post dismissed. Please re-frame and try again.

[Mr.Moron]

Giving the fighter, who needs ability boosts less than most other classes, nearly twice as many of the same makes absolutely no sense without feats enabled, especially since the fighter is arguably the class most in need of the special combat abilities only available via feats. It follows then that the feats disabled version is intended simply as a temporary measure to help acclimatize people not used to the system. Training wheels for the uninitiated.

Failure to recognize an obvious pattern detected, Post dismissed. Please re-frame and try again.

Define the word "Obvious" here because I think we are using vastly different definitions. You get that there can be factors driving designer decisions beyond "Providing for maximum efficiency for charOPers"... right?

[Symphony]

27 point buy on a wood elf monk can easily yield 18s in both wisdom and dex, with an okay con. Even with -1 in the other stats, it's still preferable to standard array.

No, it can't. Max is 15 in point buy, which takes 9 of your 27 points for even a single 15.

[Rfkannen]

No, it can't. Max is 15 in point buy, which takes 9 of your 27 points for even a single 15.

Well they can have 17 dex, so pretty close.

[SaintRidley]

17/16 is not two 18s, though.

[Daishain]

Define the word "Obvious" here because I think we are using vastly different definitions. You get that there can be factors driving designer decisions beyond "Providing for maximum efficiency for charOPers"... right?
Maximum efficiency be damned. Can you think of ANY reason for the fighter to hold to that unusual ability progression if feats are not intended to be an integral part of this system?

[OldTrees1]

Variant Human: 15+1/14/13+1/12/10/8
Honestly 16/14/14/12/10/8 doesn't sound too bad for many classes and this is with the lowest racial ability bonuses. However it does hurt the DAD classes (16/14). (MAD classes like the 16/14/14)

[SaintRidley]

Maximum efficiency be damned. Can you think of ANY reason for the fighter to hold to that unusual ability progression if feats are not intended to be an integral part of this system?

So they can have more high stats than the casters in a game environment where your stat actually matters to rolls so they can have overall better saves on their nonproficient saves and thus tank better and not suck.

[Pex]

The standard array has always sucked for any edition, including Pathfinder. The recommended Point Buy always sucked for any edition, including Pathfinder, except I find for 4E given the rules set. The concept of Point Buy is sound; it's always the implementation that ruins it for me. I don't demand an 18 at first level, but I refuse to be forced to have an 8. 5E is the worst offender since it outright forbids you from having an 18. I vehemently oppose and loathe 5E Point Buy. Pathfinder is the least offensive because all scores start at 10. You only have a lower score if you choose to have one. I have chosen to have an 8. When a game offers different values of Point Buy, only the highest one works - 32 for 3E, 25 for Pathfinder. Pathfinder 20 Point Buy barely works even for a Paladin but don't even think of playing a Paladin or Monk with 15 Point Buy. Only the 25 Point Buy doesn't "force" you to have an 8. Classes that don't care about Charisma are not hurt by Pathfinder Point Buy. That's where the 7 goes for a juicy 4 points extra.

Point Buy doesn't hurt spellcasters because they only care about their casting stat. Constitution or Dexterity is second choice depending upon player's preference. Warriors are always hurt with Point Buy because they're inherently MAD. They need Strength, Constitution, and Dexterity because not every warrior wears full plate and shield. 5E Monks replace Strength importance with Wisdom.

Point Buy is neither fair nor balanced.

[Daishain]

So they can have more high stats than the casters in a game environment where your stat actually matters to rolls so they can have overall better saves on their nonproficient saves and thus tank better and not suck.

Then where is the same consideration for barbarians, monks, paladins, rangers, rogues, and/or bards? All of those tend, to one degree or another, to have more of a need to keep diverse ability scores up as high as feasible. Take the SAD spellcasters out of the picture, and the fighter would be the class that needs the extra abilities they get the least.

Then there is the fact that this is a recognizable pattern. The fighter in 3.5 got more feats than anyone else, because it needed them more than anyone else. Fast forward to 5E, the fighter still needs feats more than anyone else, and gets more ability progression than anyone else in a system where feats can be traded in for that progression.

[SaintRidley]

Then where is the same consideration for barbarians, monks, paladins, rangers, rogues, and/or bards?

Bards are fullcasters now. Rogues? They get more improvements than anyone but the Fighter, and a lot of their old restrictions are gone (hooray for sneak attacking the undead!). The barbarian capstone is effectively four ability score improvements all at once. Monks not only function, but have access to spellcasting. Paladins and rangers have better spellcasting now and actually useful class features (and the Paladin's MAD is much mitigated) while the ranger's fighting styles are actually usable.

The same consideration and more was given.

[Daishain]

Bards are fullcasters now. Rogues? They get more improvements than anyone but the Fighter, and a lot of their old restrictions are gone (hooray for sneak attacking the undead!). The barbarian capstone is effectively four ability score improvements all at once. Monks not only function, but have access to spellcasting. Paladins and rangers have better spellcasting now and actually useful class features (and the Paladin's MAD is much mitigated) while the ranger's fighting styles are actually usable.

The same consideration and more was given.
The fighters got much the same treatment, most of their weaknesses have been filled, and they have a lot more versatility than before, even without the Eldritch Knight and Battlemaster archetypes, they also can get by with only two favored ability scores, none of the others can do the same, at least not without compromising those same features you just rattled off.

To summarize, fighters tend to need higher ability scores much less than they do feats. Meanwhile other classes don't particularly need feats but could use higher ability scores to supplement the features they already have. What kind of twisted logic would it take to give the fighter more in the way of ability progression under these circumstances if feats were not intended to be a part of the equation?

You also failed to address the point I made about the pattern between this edition and 3.5.

[Easy_Lee]

17/16 is not two 18s, though.

Woodelf puts 17wis/16dex with point buy. Woodelf gets +2dex and +1wis. 18/18.

Yes, the standard array is a point buy. But it's a very specific point allotment that suits some characters far better than others.

[Arzanyos]

The highest you can get via point buy is a 15. And that takes 9 out of 27 points.

[Easy_Lee]

The highest you can get via point buy is a 15. And that takes 9 out of 27 points.

Then we're not using the same point buy rules. I just used this calculator (http://tools.digitalightbulb.com/pbcalc.html).

[Chaosvii7]

Then we're not using the same point buy rules. I just used this calculator (http://tools.digitalightbulb.com/pbcalc.html).

That calculator is vastly outdated, probably from the playtests. The Player's Handbook and the Basic PDF cap point buy at 15 max.

[Blackdrop]

Then we're not using the same point buy rules. I just used this calculator (http://tools.digitalightbulb.com/pbcalc.html).

Yeah, you're using a 3.5E calculator, not 5E calculator. 5E point-buy can be found on pg 13 of the PHB or page 8 of the Basic Player rules (http://media.wizards.com/2014/downloads/dnd/PlayerDnDBasicRules_v0.2.pdf). 15 is indeed the max and it costs 9 out of 27 points.

[SaintRidley]

You also failed to address the point I made about the pattern between this edition and 3.5.

Because there's not a pattern. Two data points do not a pattern make.

[Scirocco]

Anyone seeking to fix this should just alot more buy points to the martials. The problem has always been that the martials required a larger stat/item budget than the casters.

[Hytheter]

I don't see how the array favours SAD characters any more than the other generation methods. Whether it be rolls, point buy or array, SAD characters can still just put their only required stat up top while MAD characters have to make compromises.

[Daishain]

Because there's not a pattern. Two data points do not a pattern make.
These aren't data points, and this is not a statistics problem. This is somewhere between artistic analysis and psychology, and even vague coincidences have meaning, because there was some decision and purpose behind each and every one.

[DDogwood]

But a blade pact warlock can't melee well with a str/dex as low as 14. He'll have to pick a race that lets him get 16 in both that and cha. Even then, the character will the stat increases for stats and not feats.

I don't agree with this premise. A Warlock with Str 14 hits ~5% less often and does 1 point less damage per hit than one with Str 16 (replace with Dex if you use finesse weapons). I don't accept that this is the difference between doing "well" and not doing "well" in melee.

What you seem to be saying is that the standard array makes it harder for certain classes to squeeze maximum efficiency out of their abilities. I would say that this is working as intended - standard array, like rolling for stats, is for people who are not concerned with maximum efficiency. The standard array is for people who want a bit more balance than rolling stats, but don't want to mess around with calculating point buy.

If a DM insists that you must use the standard array instead of point buy (which seems unlikely, but possible) then maybe he/she is actually asking you to tone down the character optimization and focus more on some other aspect of the game.

[LucianoAr]

you do realize that extra +1 you would get (going from +1 to +2 or +2 to +3) represents just a 5% in all your rolls?

seriously... it makes no difference to roleplay

[Pex]

I don't agree with this premise. A Warlock with Str 14 hits ~5% less often and does 1 point less damage per hit than one with Str 16 (replace with Dex if you use finesse weapons). I don't accept that this is the difference between doing "well" and not doing "well" in melee.

What you seem to be saying is that the standard array makes it harder for certain classes to squeeze maximum efficiency out of their abilities. I would say that this is working as intended - standard array, like rolling for stats, is for people who are not concerned with maximum efficiency. The standard array is for people who want a bit more balance than rolling stats, but don't want to mess around with calculating point buy.

If a DM insists that you must use the standard array instead of point buy (which seems unlikely, but possible) then maybe he/she is actually asking you to tone down the character optimization and focus more on some other aspect of the game.


you do realize that extra +1 you would get (going from +1 to +2 or +2 to +3) represents just a 5% in all your rolls?

seriously... it makes no difference to roleplay

The wanting of optimum efficiency and preferring +3 to hit and damage instead of +2 to hit and damage has no effect on the ability and desire to focus on other aspects of the game or roleplaying in general.

[Easy_Lee]

you do realize that extra +1 you would get (going from +1 to +2 or +2 to +3) represents just a 5% in all your rolls?

seriously... it makes no difference to roleplay

It represents a 5% increase only when the target's AC is as low as your lowest role (95->100%). Consider if your character were trying to hit AC 22 and your total bonus is +2. Going to +3 doubles your odds of hitting. Similarly, raising your AC by one point can halve your odds of getting hit by some foes.

Anyone who's played 4e knows that attack bonus was the most important stat in the game, that +1 hit was a huge boon because of how tight the math was. The better your DM is at designing level appropriate challenges, the more important the +1's will be.

So yes, optimal stats are a very big deal. If you're spending all of your boosts on stats, which you should if you're not maxed for your main stats, then you end up with less feats. Thus, playing a character with less MAD is the only sensible option.

[Arzanyos]

But in 5E, the math is nowhere near that tight.

[dexrom]

I have always rolled for stats. I will always roll for stats. Quick question (no offense intended): As an old school gamer coming back to D&D after a long departure (2nd was the last time I really played), is this obsession with "optimization" and "balance" common amongst gamers now or is it just this forum? I don't recall much if any of this being talked about back in my day. Thank you in advance for any calm and rational responses to my inquiry. :smallbiggrin:

[Steel Mirror]

is this obsession with "optimization" and "balance" common amongst gamers now or is it just this forum? I don't recall much if any of this being talked about back in my day. Thank you in advance for any calm and rational responses to my inquiry. :smallbiggrin:You can find people who are interested in it in addition to RP, you can find people who get most of their fun from an RPG by optimizing, and you can find people who don't give a hoot about numbers and like to just assume a character and have adventurous improv sessions.

That said, threads like this one are made specifically for people who want to talk optimization, so of course you are going to see lots of optimization talk. Also, it's a rather narrow view of people's tastes. It's like watching people walk into a Mexican restaurant and then assuming that everyone there always eats Mexican food for every meal, because you never see them eat anything else. People will come onto the forum, talk optimization and theorycraft and pick apart the game's numbers to the tiniest detail, but that is not everything we do. When we play that game, the vast majority of us still care about RP and so on. It's just that we don't talk about it here because, well, for the most part it's more fun to do the RP than it is to talk about it.

TL;DR - yeah, this forum has more people who are interested in talking optimization than you would see in the "wild", but part of that is just because like minds tend to congregate, and in any case calling it an "obsession" is a bit of an overstatement. :smallwink:

[dexrom]

Thank you very much! Sorry for the brief derail.

[DDogwood]

The wanting of optimum efficiency and preferring +3 to hit and damage instead of +2 to hit and damage has no effect on the ability and desire to focus on other aspects of the game or roleplaying in general.

Very nice, but that has nothing to do with what I said. I said that the standard array is not designed for people who want optimum efficiency. If your DM mandates the standard array, instead of allowing point buy, then he/she is telling you NOT to focus on maximum efficiency.

Optimization doesn't have anything to do with roleplaying, but it CAN make the DM's job more complicated if not everyone is doing it. While I've never known a DM who insisted on standard arrays but disallowed point buys (which is what the original complaint is about), it's certainly possible, and it doesn't indicate a flaw in the rules.