How important are the stats?

[Starchild7309]

As I have said previously I am very new to 5th, but have played 3.5 for a long time.

Our group rolls stats and goes for the 14/+4 rule for stats. After seeing our characters in action it feels like the people that rolled just insane stats dominated, while the ones that had pedestrian stats struggled some.

I understand the cap is 20 for a stat so that should even out, but in the mean time it seems like those with average or just above average stats get stuck for not being lucky. Admittedly, I am working from a small sample size, but those of you that have played at multiple different levels, what have you seen or noticed about stats importance.

It just irks me as magic items are very rare and the ability to increase those stats comes at such spread intervals and it seems like average stats are making some of us liabilities instead of useful members of the party.

[Demonic Spoon]

It depends on how pedestrian is pedestrian. I've seen people roll nothing higher than a 12 or 13, or ~3 or more rolls under 10.

My rule is that if you don't like your rolls, you can take the standard array instead. The great-rolling characters would have a small advantage, but not a huge one.


Keep in mind that with such a small sample size, it's entirely possible that they are either just getting lucky or their characters are stronger at this particular level than yours are for other reasons.

[MaxWilson]

Stats are very important in 5e, just as in first and second editions. Good stats can make you perform up to several levels above mediocre stats. There are ways to contribute even with mediocre stats (say, all stats under 13) but you have to adjust your play style and expectations, e.g. cast Haste on the guy with good stats instead of on yourself, or cast Cloud of Daggers instead of Scorching Ray. Don't assume that level is the only metric.

[Demonic Spoon]

Stats are very important in 5e, just as in first and second editions. Good stats can make you perform up to several levels above mediocre stats. There are ways to contribute even with mediocre stats (say, all stats under 13) but you have to adjust your play style and expectations, e.g. cast Haste on the guy with good stats instead of on yourself, or cast Cloud of Daggers instead of Scorching Ray. Don't assume that level is the only metric.


There is a 7% chance of getting 6 stats <= 13. That's not "mediocre", that's terrible.

Also, the +2 attack and damage that anyone is likely to have over you due to rolling really well on their primary stat is most certainly not worth several levels of hitpoints + class features + higher proficiency bonus. That's an absurd exaggeration.

[Tenmujiin]

Expected starting stats are lower in 5e than 3.x so your rolling system will likely result in some headaches for the DM, particularly given the power of a high primary stat.

[Shadow]

This is exactly why point buy is a better system than rolling characters.
With point buy, the ones that "rolled great" don't exist, and thus the discrepancy in power levels is only a factor if one player min/maxes while another is more balanced (and even that discrepancy doesn't last very long).

[MaxWilson]

There is a 7% chance of getting 6 stats <= 13. That's not "mediocre", that's terrible.

Also, the +2 attack and damage that anyone is likely to have over you due to rolling really well on their primary stat is most certainly not worth several levels of hitpoints + class features + higher proficiency bonus. That's an absurd exaggeration.

Do the math.

Note that the difference between 18 and 12 is +3 in attack/damage, not +2. Put this together with Great Weapon Mastery and/or Sharpshooter and you will find that there are things mediocre stats guy simply cannot do until he has gained several levels.

1st level variant human fighter with archery feat and 18 DX and Sharpshooter fighting heavily-armored foes (hobgoblins) does expected damage of about 5.75 points of damage per turn, whereas the same human with 12 DX does 2.5 points of damage. By the time he is 5th level and has boosted his DX to 14, gotten an extra attack, and gotten +1 to proficiency, he will be doing about 8.6 points of damage per turn. At that point, 18 DX guy is now 20 DX guy and is doing about 16 points of damage per turn to those same hobgoblins. It is not an absurd exaggeration to say that one of these guys is performing at 2-4 levels above the other based on stats.

Edit: typo fix.

[Demonic Spoon]

Note that the difference between 18 and 12 is +3 in attack/damage, not +2. Put this together with Great Weapon Mastery and/or Sharpshooter and you will find that there are things mediocre stats guy simply cannot do until he has gained several levels.


I was making the more reasonable assumption that the player who rolled "mediocre" at least had a single roll higher than 12-13, and the players who rolled "well" didn't all get 18s.

[Krymoar]

You gain Proficiency every four levels, starting from 1, so 5, 9, 13, 17, (21?)

This is the bonus everyone gets, it is the baseline of things you do well.

After your proficiency, you have your roll, which is the same for everybody, (assuming they did the same things, got the same advantage/disadvantage.

If one character has a thirteen (+1) in their highest stat, and another has eighteen(+4):

The 18 guy succeeds 20% more often, no matter what the level is, if they never increase the stats anymore.

On damage rolls, they both use the same weapon? say 1d12 for fun, eighteen guy averages 10.5 damage on a hit, the thirteen guy averages 7.5, that's in a situation where one of the biggest Dice are rolled.

Using a 1d4, The eighteen guy averages 6.5 a swing, the low stat guy averages 3.5

The low stat guy can close these damage gaps by using mechanics that add more dice, and less attacks like maybe playing rogue, The high stat guy can do whatever he wants, but he will shine over the low stat guy by making more attacks, which his hits land more often anyway.

To get to the coveted 20 stat score, the eighteen guy spends one ASI (or two half feats, w/e), and can move onto other stats

The Thirteen guy needs 3.5 ASIs, this means, it costs him more feats, and he has lower defenses in all his saves..

Let's assume the thirteen guy is proficient in stealth and has this 13 in his dex, and the 18 guy is not proficient, also 18 in dex

The 13 guy at level 1 gets a +3 to his stealth. the eighteen guy gets a +4. He is better at things he is not proficient in that the thirteen guy is proficient in, you end up breaking even at level 5, (supposing they spent their ASI in the stat) 13 guy(now 15) has +5 now, and 18 guy(now 20) has +5. The next ASI or proficiency pushes the 13 guy past, but the 18 guy is buying into other stats, or taking other feats, could even grab the feat that gives you some skill proficiencies(I think there is one) and continue to blow out the 13 guy



The stats get converted into Attacks, Damages, Saves, Abilities, DCs for other enemies. ASIs become options and boons for the 18 guy, but they become an investment for the 13 guy, just to try and catch up.

I recommend point buy, followed by Standard Array. The last time I played a game where we rolled stats (we did roll 6, if you don't like them you get one reroll, you are stuck with the reroll if you do though, place scores where you want) was a 4e game, I was a Warlock who's background was Studying languages (one "secret/old" one in particular) The DM had to house rule that I could take the feat, since my Int didn't have the prerequisites, my character sheet was covered with negative modifiers.

I ended up taking a "Run Faster" Feat (Generally no matter what, in a game with any strategy elements, I am a fan of mobility). and a feat to give me proficiency with a sword. Because I was so awful at being magical, I would run around like a crazy person and became known as "The Old Hermit" because my character was "Deaf, Blind, and had a Beard" getting in trouble one time because I ran down the streets to distract guards and Failed my athletics throw to toss a torch in the middle of the street while shouting that the orphanage was on fire. The Church was then on fire.

Also notorious for letting 7 people slip past me, (I was often made lookout because of my uselessness with Stealth and Battle, and being bad at stealth gets you caught even when people aren't looking for you.) 7 freaking people in a well-lit library(You have to roll on things like that when you have a -4 to perception checks).

So, bad stats can make for an interesting character, but so can good stats, and while it may be fun to watch someone continually be forced to be creative and ridiculous, it can get old for the player, always becoming useless in any important situations.

Edits: Typos

[Krymoar]

I was making the more reasonable assumption that the player who rolled "mediocre" at least had a single roll higher than 12-13, and the players who rolled "well" didn't all get 18s.

Also, an "average" roll on 3d6s is 10.5(50% of possible combinations should be 10-11), I'm not sure mathematically how dropping the fourth effects it, but I doubt it's by more than the average of an entire die.

13 is probably above average

[Townopolis]

the 14/+4 rule for stats.
Does this mean what I think it means? I do not know what this means.

[Edit]: Unrelated: The "average roll" for 4d6b3 is 12.24. However, just as it is highly unlikely for someone rolling 3d6 to get 11/11/11/10/10/10, it is highly unlikely for someone rolling 4d6b3 to never roll above a 13, in 6 rolls, and having at least one better-than-average stat for whatever you attack with is quite important in D&D.

[Demonic Spoon]

Also, an "average" roll on 3d6s is 10.5(50% of possible combinations should be 10-11), I'm not sure mathematically how dropping the fourth effects it, but I doubt it's by more than the average of an entire die.

13 is probably above average

What Lordsmoothe said. You don't need all your dice to be above 13, you need at least one. As I mentioned above, the change of having all your attributes be 13 or below is a mere 7%. There is a 93% chance that you will have at least one score that is 14 or higher.

...Granted, one could argue that's still enough of a chance for bad rolls that you might need to have an "escape plan" (being ready to let a player reroll, or use the standard array, if their roll is awful)...but it's not a "mediocre" roll, it's a terrible and very unlikely roll.

[Krymoar]

What Lordsmoothe said. You don't need all your dice to be above 13, you need at least one. As I mentioned above, the change of having all your attributes be 13 or below is a mere 7%. There is a 93% chance that you will have at least one score that is 14 or higher.

...Granted, one could argue that's still enough of a chance for bad rolls that you might need to have an "escape plan" (being ready to let a player reroll, or use the standard array, if their roll is awful)...but it's not a "mediocre" roll, it's a terrible and very unlikely roll.

But.. it does happen, and 14 isn't much better.

The OP is saying mediocre rolls vs. High rolls.

Even in the best case scenario of what "mediocre" or "high" means, I believe that the context is "One guys can do everything the other guy can do but better." Or.. "I can do what I can do, and I can do what you can do" barring certain abilities.

Now, I am not requesting that you do the work or anything, but what are the chances of 4 or 5 people all rolling 4d6/drop lowest and one of them NOT getting 14.

Just like it's unlikely that 3d6 will always yield 10.5(Impossible, obviously), so 6 rolls gives you a 93% chance to get a 14 or better, as you add more people, there is more chance that one of them will fall in that 7%, and more chance that one of them will fall into the opposite 7%.

This is an issue after all of some characters just being plain better than others, not the issue of all the players being mediocre.

[Townopolis]

93%*.93*.93*.93=74.8% chance all four players get at least one score of 14 or higher.

[Edit]: 69.5% chance all five players get at least one 14+.

[Krymoar]

93%*.93*.93*.93=74.8% chance all four players get at least one score of 14 or higher.

[Edit]: 69.5% chance all five players get at least one 14+.

So 1/4 of games have the sickly guy who can't read so good travelling with Action heroes..

[Starchild7309]

Does this mean what I think it means? I do not know what this means.

You have to have at least one 14 and your total stat bonuses have to at up to at least a +4.

[Gurka]

So 1/4 of games have the sickly guy who can't read so good travelling with Action heroes..

Quit hating on Steve Buscemi. He's got his place!

Really though, this is definitely why point buy or standard array games always play out better for me. If you don't like the standard array or what you can get via point buy, you can always increase either, so your players feel more heroic. If you do that, just remember to adjust your encounter difficulty accordingly.

[odigity]

Quit hating on Steve Buscemi. He's got his place!

The Dude: "I don't even have a 14!"
Donny: "What do you need that for, Dude?"
Walter: "Shut the F up, Donny."

[Rack]

If you get a 14 you can pick a race that gets you a +2 to your prime stat to get the standard +3 on attacks. It's not great, but it's not the end of the world. If you get a 13 as your highest you probably need to go with something like a Life Cleric or a Moon Druid, who can do well with downright poor stats.

Without optimisation though you're likely to be in a bad way, especially if a player gets an 18 and goes for a class that nets him a +2.

[Fwiffo86]

This is exactly why point buy is a better system than rolling characters.
With point buy, the ones that "rolled great" don't exist, and thus the discrepancy in power levels is only a factor if one player min/maxes while another is more balanced (and even that discrepancy doesn't last very long).

I love this post.

[Fwiffo86]

So 1/4 of games have the sickly guy who can't read so good travelling with Action heroes..

Sounds like a dumbed down version of Raistlin

[Person_Man]

My opinion is that Ability Scores are very important in 5E. They're not as important as making smart choices and using your resources well. For example, getting Advantage goes a long way to helping mediocre rolls, and you can get Advantage a variety of different ways. But if Player One has noticeably better Ability Scores, then its probable that Player One will have a noticeably more effective character.

Also, its worth mentioning that the Paladin, Monk, Barbarian, and any spellcaster who attempts to use a weapon as their default attack will have more MAD then spellcasters who rely on cantrips. (Rogue, Fighter, and Ranger could go either way, depending on your subclass and build choices). So if you roll mediocre ability scores, consider playing a spellcaster who hangs back and casts stuff (as opposed to front line combat, where AC and hit points are more important), use your Ability Score Increases to get your primary casting stat up to 20, and make sure you have some defensive and mobility magic available to keep you alive.

[mr_odd]

There is a 7% chance of getting 6 stats <= 13. That's not "mediocre", that's terrible.

I can't tell you how many times I did this or 5 stats at 13 or less with 1 higher. I'm cursed.

[MaxWilson]

I was making the more reasonable assumption that the player who rolled "mediocre" at least had a single roll higher than 12-13, and the players who rolled "well" didn't all get 18s.

You know, we could have a discussion here about what "typical" ST/DX/CN/etc. are, and whether 12 is terrible or mediocre, and whether my "absurd" statement about the impact of good stats was based on probabilistic means for PCs or racial means or means per-class... but we don't have to, because I explicitly defined my term "mediocre stats" as well as outlining the implications.

Stats are really quite important in 5E, that is why it goes out of its way to ensure that most people get good stats. This wasn't always the case in prior editions, but if you were rolling 3d6 in 5E you would quickly discover why meh stats and bounded accuracy don't mix.

[mr_odd]

Stats are really quite important in 5E, that is why it goes out of its way to ensure that most people get good stats. This wasn't always the case in prior editions, but if you were rolling 3d6 in 5E you would quickly discover why meh stats and bounded accuracy don't mix.

This is precisely why I have decided to have my players use point buy instead of rolling when we switch to 5e.

[BW022]

In terms of balance between characters, there are only a few things which can make them unbalanced -- WotC not having balanced class abilities, players being exceptionally good/bad, insane luck, unbalanced treasure distribution, and... stats.

Classes in 5e are much more balanced than 3.5 -- maybe less so than 4e. Player abilities you have no control over, but most are roughly equivalent especially in combat. Luck tends to even out over weeks or months of play. Most groups divide treasure evenly and DMs tend to watch items. So... that leaves stats.

That unbalanced stats can lead to unbalanced characters and play has been well known. This is why point buy was introduced. It has been a serious issue in all D&D versions and certainly more of an issue in 3.5 and now 5e. There are also lots of suggestions for balanced stats which allow rolling -- i.e. each of player takes turns rolling 4d6 (taking 3 highest) and writes them down in order under you have 18 scores laid out. Players can then select any consecutive six scores and arrange them in whatever order they wish. All players get a chance to roll. Each can choose the same set of six. It is random, yet balanced.

Having an extra +1 bonus is often a 20%-30% higher chance of success, 20% more damage, 15% more hit points, etc. It is also something for which one cannot overcome. If you wait to 4 levels to increase it... other players also increase their abilities or get feats. If you wait several levels to get a higher proficiency bonus to make up for it... the other players get the same increase as they level. If you get a magical item... they typically will also. You'll *never* catch up.


I understand the cap is 20 for a stat so that should even out, ...


No. The 20 cap will never restore balance between characters. If you have two fighters -- one with a 16 strength and one with an 18 strength, yes, you might both stop at a 20 strength at level 8. However, the second fighter would now still be ahead because they would have either a feat or +2 to their constitution (say more hit points).

The cap is intended to keep balance between characters and opponents and the environment. It is designed such that characters scale in power more linearly. It ensures that at higher levels characters don't have god-like abilities to always hit, don't have spells that can't be saved against, can't leap 50', can't disarm every trap, can't fail to be tripped, etc. Proficiency bonus between 1st and 20th is only a +4 difference, maybe another +1 or +2 due to magic. The idea is that stats are kept limited to this range also, so we aren't talking +40 to checks, attacks, etc.



It just irks me as magic items are very rare and the ability to increase those stats comes at such spread intervals and it seems like average stats are making some of us liabilities instead of useful members of the party.


Magical items in 3.5 never kept balance. In most cases, they ruined balance. When groups found magical items... most gave items based on which character could best make use of the item... not as some attempt to restore balance to a 'weaker' character.

If you had two fighters (one with a strength of 16 and one with a strength of 20), parties were just as likely to give a +2 strength item to the one with the 20 strength since he would be more likely to hit and damage opponents. It is pretty rare to see any party voluntarily try not to min-max magical items or self-balance the group. Tying magical items to players gets tiresome and unrealistic. Even if a party actually gave the +2 strength item to the lower strength fighter... chances are the next magical item (say a +2 sword) would go to the other fighter. Fairly quickly... he's still be hitting more often and doing more damage.

Magical items are not a way of restoring party unbalance.

[MaxWilson]

In terms of balance between characters, there are only a few things which can make them unbalanced -- WotC not having balanced class abilities, players being exceptionally good/bad, insane luck, unbalanced treasure distribution, and... stats.

Also levels. If one player has a 10th level character who's survived the whole campaign and the other players have 1st-5th level characters from dying multiple times, the 10th level guy is probably on the hook for all the really hard stuff, or at least the hard stuff that fits his niche.

One of the cool things about 5E is that even low-level characters can have a big impact as support personnel, due to the Concentration and Action economies. The 2nd level Diviner can ensure that the 10th level Moon Druid doesn't fail any important saves; the 1st level cleric can buff with Bless; the 1st level Bard can grant Inspiration 2-5 times a day and give everybody +3-6 temp HP from Inspirational Leadership; the 5th level wizard can Fireball mobs for 8d6; the Urchin can steal stuff pretty effectively; the Noble can handle diplomacy even if he is really just a 3rd level Sorcerer. And due to bounded accuracy, all of these low-level guys can even contribute well in combat.

5E is a great edition for non-homogenous levels... which means that it is also a great edition for permadeath.


If you had two fighters (one with a strength of 16 and one with a strength of 20), parties were just as likely to give a +2 strength item to the one with the 20 strength since he would be more likely to hit and damage opponents. It is pretty rare to see any party voluntarily try not to min-max magical items or self-balance the group. Tying magical items to players gets tiresome and unrealistic. Even if a party actually gave the +2 strength item to the lower strength fighter... chances are the next magical item (say a +2 sword) would go to the other fighter. Fairly quickly... he's still be hitting more often and doing more damage.

Magical items are not a way of restoring party unbalance.

I don't like magic-heavy campaigns, but playing devil's advocate for a second: you are overlooking how certain magic items work in 5E. Gauntlets of Ogre Power set your strength to 19; they are absolutely no use to STR 20 guy but they bring ST 14 guy up almost to the same level. They do equalize things quite a bit, if you happen to have them.

[Kurald Galain]

Our group rolls stats and goes for the 14/+4 rule for stats. After seeing our characters in action it feels like the people that rolled just insane stats dominated, while the ones that had pedestrian stats struggled some.

That's confirmation bias at work. The difference between "insane" stats and "pedestrian" stats in 5E is only about 15%, so while it's certainly nice to have "insane" stats it is absolutely not the case that such characters dominate. Indeed, if you hadn't been told in advance which character had "insane" stats, you'd probably not be able to tell the difference in the average gaming session.

That said, if such discrepancies bother you, you should use point buy instead of rolling.

[MaxWilson]

That's confirmation bias at work. The difference between "insane" stats and "pedestrian" stats in 5E is only about 15%

Raw modifiers are a weird way of measuring impact. Going from 5% chance of hitting on a given attack to 10% is "only" a +5% difference to the raw modifier, but it's a +100% increase in offensive effectiveness, meaning that you can handle about +50% more total monsters given that your HP haven't changed.

[Kurald Galain]

Raw modifiers are a weird way of measuring impact. Going from 5% chance of hitting on a given attack to 10% is "only" a +5% difference to the raw modifier, but it's a +100% increase in offensive effectiveness, meaning that you can handle about +50% more total monsters given that your HP haven't changed.

Cherry picking edge cases doesn't prove anything.

[MaxWilson]

Cherry picking edge cases doesn't prove anything.

I picked an extreme example for pedagogical purposes, but +1 bonus is literally never only a +5% in effectiveness. Measuring raw modifiers is a weird metric, anyone who can do math knows that. The only times it's useful are when you're trying to measure outputs instead of ratios, like when you're running mass combats and trying to decide whether to bring more common soldiers or a smaller number of elite soldiers. For individual characters who don't have the option of suddenly becoming two characters, it's never useful.

[Icewraith]

Think of it like this.... have each player roll their scores using your preferred rolling method and tally up their bonuses. Subtract the lowest total from the highest total, call that number "N".

In this game, the dice have decreed that the player with the highest stat bonus total effectively got N free feats at level one, compared to the player with the worst stats.

Actually, this might be a good way to compensate for bad rolls. Give each player a number of feats to make up the difference between their total ability bonuses and the player with the best total ability bonuses.

Edit: Let's say we've got someone who rolls 17 (+3), 16 (+3), 14 (+2), 14 (+2), 11 (+0), 7 (-2) and someone with the standard array of 15 (+2), 14(+2), 13(+1), 12(+1), 10(+0), 8(-1) N1 is 8, N2 is 5. Player one is at a minimum 3 feat advantage.

If you add up the total ability scores, subtract 60, and divide by two, N1 is 9.5 and N2 is 6. Accounting for odd ability bonuses, P1 actually has a three and a half feat advantage over player two starting from level one. This is still generous, because the 7 in player 1's score is actually tanking his total more than someone using the standard array would be able to. Anything you already have a -1 in, having a -2 won't hurt you as bad because you're already going to suck at it so your character is going to avoid tasks based off of that stat whenever possible. Even if Player 2 had those three and a half feats, he wouldn't be able to replicate Player 1's scores because of the 7.

Double Edit: Note that it's possible to determine a half-feat advantage since a feat can either be +2 or +1/+1 to a score.

[Kurald Galain]

In this game, the dice have decreed that the player with the highest stat bonus total effectively got N free feats at level one, compared to the player with the worst stats.

Hahahahaha no.

For your primary stat you may have a point (although other threads indicate that this is debatable). However, there's no way that a +2 bonus to any other stat is worth a feat. Just because the rules allow you to boost one of your character's least-used dump stats from (e.g.) 6 to 8 with a feat doesn't mean that there's any point in actually doing so.

[Yagyujubei]

It depends on how pedestrian is pedestrian. I've seen people roll nothing higher than a 12 or 13, or ~3 or more rolls under 10.

My rule is that if you don't like your rolls, you can take the standard array instead. The great-rolling characters would have a small advantage, but not a huge one.


Keep in mind that with such a small sample size, it's entirely possible that they are either just getting lucky or their characters are stronger at this particular level than yours are for other reasons.

this, so so much this. There's nothing that can kill the fun of a game like having one or two people with multiple 18+ stats while the others have garbage. no one likes feeling completely weak/useless compared to their companions.

honestly with how bounded accuracy works I'm tempted to outlaw 4d6d1 just due to the fact that people reaching 20 in a stat by level 4 or 6 feels way too strong and seems to go against the spirit of the edition.

I'll prolly only allow point buy or standard in the future

[JoeJ]

this, so so much this. There's nothing that can kill the fun of a game like having one or two people with multiple 18+ stats while the others have garbage. no one likes feeling completely weak/useless compared to their companions.

honestly with how bounded accuracy works I'm tempted to outlaw 4d6d1 just due to the fact that people reaching 20 in a stat by level 4 or 6 feels way too strong and seems to go against the spirit of the edition.

I'll prolly only allow point buy or standard in the future

With point buy you can quite easily reach 19 by level 4 and 20 by level 6 (if you're a fighter). Just buy whichever stat you want at 15 and pick a race that give you a +2 bonus to that stat. The only exception is Wisdom, where the highest racial bonus is +1. That still lets you have an 18 by level 4 and 20 by level 6 (if for some reason you're playing a fighter who's maxing out Wisdom).

[Yagyujubei]

With point buy you can quite easily reach 19 by level 4 and 20 by level 6 (if you're a fighter). Just buy whichever stat you want at 15 and pick a race that give you a +2 bonus to that stat. The only exception is Wisdom, where the highest racial bonus is +1. That still lets you have an 18 by level 4 and 20 by level 6 (if for some reason you're playing a fighter who's maxing out Wisdom).

yeah but with point buy if you want to do that you really have to sacrifice other stats to accomplish it. with 4d6d1 you can get absolutely game breaking starting numbers.

i mean how many threads have i seen with people saying "I rolled 18,16,15,15,13,11 what should I build?" imho that's way too strong for 5e granted there's alot of luck involved in getting those numbers, but my whole point is that I think luck should be taken out of the equation for starting stats because at the other end you get someone who rolled 16,12,10,9,9,7. there should never be that much of a gap from one PC to the next.

[MaxWilson]

yeah but with point buy if you want to do that you really have to sacrifice other stats to accomplish it. with 4d6d1 you can get absolutely game breaking starting numbers.

i mean how many threads have i seen with people saying "I rolled 18,16,15,15,13,11 what should I build?" imho that's way too strong for 5e granted there's alot of luck involved in getting those numbers, but my whole point is that I think luck should be taken out of the equation for starting stats because at the other end you get someone who rolled 16,12,10,9,9,7. there should never be that much of a gap from one PC to the next.

16,12,10,9,9,7 can still result in a fun and effective character, it will just be fragile due to poor saves. I'd make that a half-elf Warlock 2/Sorc X, or maybe Warlock 2/Bard X depending on the party composition.

[Yagyujubei]

16,12,10,9,9,7 can still result in a fun and effective character, it will just be fragile due to poor saves. I'd make that a half-elf Warlock 2/Sorc X, or maybe Warlock 2/Bard X depending on the party composition.

yeah im not saying it isnt workable, but when you're in the same party as the human who is rocking 19,17,16,14,14,12 is pretty demoralizing knowing that you'll be sporting multiple negative modifiers, while his worst modifiers are about as good as your best

EDIT: and it also means that you'll be spending most of your precious ability bump/feats on playing catch up with your subpar modifiers, while the other player is getting feats for days which doesnt feel good.

[Icewraith]

Hahahahaha no.

For your primary stat you may have a point (although other threads indicate that this is debatable). However, there's no way that a +2 bonus to any other stat is worth a feat. Just because the rules allow you to boost one of your character's least-used dump stats from (e.g.) 6 to 8 with a feat doesn't mean that there's any point in actually doing so.

6 to 8 isn't that big a deal, but your three best stats are going to go to (main stat), con, and dex OR dex, con, and wis (or possibly int for shieldbearing finessing EKs). (You can also get away with a 14 in dex if you have medium armor proficiency, otherwise that's another thing you have to buy) We might want to consider top three as well as all six, but the comparison is valid. They may not be optimally distributed free feats, but numerically they are exactly the same as free feats, and as the player levels he can turn gains in the top three stats INTO optimally distributed free feats as he doesn't have to boost dex or con for survivability. A character with good across the board sats doesn't have the same weaknesses a character with a -1 in a stat does. At low levels, having a 12 instead of an 8 as your lowest stat is like getting free skill proficiencies, everything else remaining equal. If we're talking someone rolling 18 18 18 14 14 14 vs someone rolling 18 18 18 10 8 6 I see your point, but usually when we're talking about bad rolls we're talking about bad all around rolls.

Even in your bottom three stats, the guy with a 14 instead of a 10 or an 8 is getting a free saving throw proficiency for a large part of the game, especially if it starts at low levels. If you wanted to refine it you could go one feat per difference in top two stat bonuses, one half of a feat per difference in middle two stat bonuses, and one fourth of a feat per difference in bottom two stat bonuses. Even looking at the previous stat distribution using that method, the second player still gets about three feats. One per difference in top three looks about right though.

[MaxWilson]

yeah im not saying it isnt workable, but when you're in the same party as the human who is rocking 19,17,16,14,14,12 is pretty demoralizing knowing that you'll be sporting multiple negative modifiers, while his worst modifiers are about as good as your best

EDIT: and it also means that you'll be spending most of your precious ability bump/feats on playing catch up with your subpar modifiers, while the other player is getting feats for days which doesnt feel good.

I guess it depends on how well you get along with the other players. If he is an annoying git and will use this as an opportunity to make himself the hero of every story, then yes. If he's a good friend who has ups and downs like everyone else and is willing to cooperate with you to get the job done, whatever that job may be, then not so much. No matter how high his stats are he is unlikely to be able to fill every niche, and if he is a MAD monk or paladin he will still be very glad to have your Web spell providing him cover, or your Druid Goodberries for healing, or whatever.

I.e. 5E is really good at supporting SADness.

[Starchild7309]

What you have all said is kind of what I gathered from my minimal amount of play time. I am working form memory here, but our party looks something like this:

Me: Human Light Cleric
Str 14, Dex 12, Con 15, Int 10, Wis 15, Cha 14

Player 2: Half elf Warlock
Str 9, Dex 15, Con 14, Int unsure, Wis 13, Cha unsure 10-12

Player 2 Human Paladin
Str 18, Dex 13, Con 16, Int 8, Wis 12, Cha 17

Player 3 Drow Ranger
Str 14, Dex 20, Con 17, Int 13, Wis 13, Cha 15

After our first session i just noticed that the Paladin and the Ranger were kicking way more ass with having ability to do more damage per round cause of good stats vs the warlock and I who were stuck for the most part with cantrips hoping the creatures failed rather meek saves for all or nothing spells. While it wasn't a complete waste, the warlock and I were only able to shine in the moments that allowed for creative thinking and interesting r/p. While that is ok and completely acceptable it would be nice to be more useful in combat. I won't go as far to say the lock and I were useless, but at first level we spent most of our time watching out cantrips get saved for and doing nothing. This is what sparked the question in the first place of if stats were that important in 5e.

As some one said before, if I start with a 15 in my main stat (Wis) and the ranger is starting with a 20 in his (dex), then I don't ever truly catch up because as I am spending level 4, 8, and 12 to get my main to 20, he has picked up 3 feats to do more damage or have more skills. Seems I will have to speak to my DM about this. I will probably play along for awhile, but at first level, other than annoying my DM, what penalty is there to just suicide my character and hope I roll better.

[Theodoxus]

It's one reason I'm going with 1d8+7 for stats. No pre-racial stat above 15, but you could get lucky and have a majority of stats >13. If you don't like the roll, you can choose point buy.

IMO, starting stats with a +4 modifier or greater trivialize levels 1-4 - at least that's my anecdotal evidence. It's essentially equivalent of having +3 Proficiency at 1st level. Doesn't seem like much, but the way bounded accuracy works, it is.

Of course, if people prefer point buy from the start, that's fine, but I've found most people enjoy the fun of rolling dice - even if it's just one die.

[Yagyujubei]

I guess it depends on how well you get along with the other players. If he is an annoying git and will use this as an opportunity to make himself the hero of every story, then yes. If he's a good friend who has ups and downs like everyone else and is willing to cooperate with you to get the job done, whatever that job may be, then not so much. No matter how high his stats are he is unlikely to be able to fill every niche, and if he is a MAD monk or paladin he will still be very glad to have your Web spell providing him cover, or your Druid Goodberries for healing, or whatever.

I.e. 5E is really good at supporting SADness.

i just try to avoid 3.5 wizard syndrome where one character can do virtually everything better than another you know? it's good for people to be better at certain things and worse at others, but when you cross into really good at everything territory even before your class is brought into the equation I think it disrupts play.

I do agree that 5e is SAD friendly though so it's not like you cant make a workable effective character with mediocre rolls

[Demonic Spoon]

What you have all said is kind of what I gathered from my minimal amount of play time. I am working form memory here, but our party looks something like this:

Me: Human Light Cleric
Str 14, Dex 12, Con 15, Int 10, Wis 15, Cha 14

Player 2: Half elf Warlock
Str 9, Dex 15, Con 14, Int unsure, Wis 13, Cha unsure 10-12

Player 2 Human Paladin
Str 18, Dex 13, Con 16, Int 8, Wis 12, Cha 17

Player 3 Drow Ranger
Str 14, Dex 20, Con 17, Int 13, Wis 13, Cha 15

With the half-elf racial bonus, your warlock started with a base in his spellcasting modifier of 8-10? That's just a recipe for awful; he could've had a CHA 17.

Furthermore, your cleric's stats are actually quite solid. Not stellar in his spellcasting stat, but lots of high rolls across the board. I'm guessing you think your light cleric isn't doing well either becauselight clerics as a class are very support-y. You don't get a lot of DPS, and you're not supposed to - that's not what the class does.

[MaxWilson]

i just try to avoid 3.5 wizard syndrome where one character can do virtually everything better than another you know? it's good for people to be better at certain things and worse at others, but when you cross into really good at everything territory even before your class is brought into the equation I think it disrupts play.

I do agree that 5e is SAD friendly though so it's not like you cant make a workable effective character with mediocre rolls

I do think you need at least one non-mediocre role for your primary stat. That single 16 makes all the difference.

[Starchild7309]

With the half-elf racial bonus, your warlock started with a base in his spellcasting modifier of 8-10? That's just a recipe for awful; he could've had a CHA 17.

Furthermore, your cleric's stats are actually quite solid. Not stellar in his spellcasting stat, but lots of high rolls across the board. I'm guessing you think your light cleric isn't doing well either becauselight clerics as a class are very support-y. You don't get a lot of DPS, and you're not supposed to - that's not what the class does.

As I said I was working from memory...His CHA is probably higher.

As for my Cleric, yeah I am a bit disappointed in what he can do in combat. I think part of the problem with that as I have played Clerics from 2ed on and in previous additions a cleric could hold his own even at low levels. This cleric doesn't seem to have that ability at all. The DM got lucky on a few rolls and a 1/2 CR kobold with a dagger dropped me with in two rounds. While I understand luck was involved, my Cleric had his shield equipped was relying on his spells, which the DM saved against each time. Saves vs his spells are only 12 which most creatures have about a 50% chance to save. Just feels very under powered vs the ranger who was attacking at +7 and doing 1d8+5 dmg. Or the Paladin who was attacking at +6 and doing 1d8+4 dmg and hitting regularly while my cantrip is doing 1d8 flatly on a miss. The warlock is doing 1d10 but the same thing its all or nothing and his save against is 13, or his spell attack is +4.

[Shadow]

As for my Cleric, yeah I am a bit disappointed in what he can do in combat. I think part of the problem with that as I have played Clerics from 2ed on and in previous additions a cleric could hold his own even at low levels. This cleric doesn't seem to have that ability at all. The DM got lucky on a few rolls and a 1/2 CR kobold with a dagger dropped me with in two rounds. While I understand luck was involved, my Cleric had his shield equipped was relying on his spells, which the DM saved against each time. Saves vs his spells are only 12 which most creatures have about a 50% chance to save. Just feels very under powered vs the ranger who was attacking at +7 and doing 1d8+5 dmg. Or the Paladin who was attacking at +6 and doing 1d8+4 dmg and hitting regularly while my cantrip is doing 1d8 flatly on a miss. The warlock is doing 1d10 but the same thing its all or nothing and his save against is 13, or his spell attack is +4.

Can I ask why you're using a cantrip for combat when you're in melee? Your Str is 14, which is acceptable. Even as a ligt cleric, your only damaging cantrip should really only be used when you ave no other options, especially before 8th level. You're better off using weapons before then considering you're in melee already.
1d6+2 if you hit (with +4) is better than 1d8 if they fail a save (at DC 12). Either way you're looking at about a 50% success rate, but the weapon is simply more effective. And you still have sacred flame for a ranged option when needed.

[Starchild7309]

Can I ask why you're using a cantrip for combat when you're in melee? Your Str is 14, which is acceptable. Even as a ligt cleric, your only damaging cantrip should really only be used when you ave no other options, especially before 8th level. You're better off using weapons before then considering you're in melee already.
1d6+2 if you hit (with +4) is better than 1d8 if they fail a save (at DC 12). Either way you're looking at about a 50% success rate, but the weapon is simply more effective. And you still have sacred flame for a ranged option when needed.

This is true, I was not planning on being in melee. I was rushed by a kobold while trying to stabilize another character. I drew my mace, hit the Kobold for 3 and got dropped immediately after that.

[Shadow]

This is true, I was not planning on being in melee. I was rushed by a kobold while trying to stabilize another character. I drew my mace, hit the Kobold for 3 and got dropped immediately after that.

I only mention it because cantrips are weak. They're for use when the caster has nothign else to do and doesn't want to waste a spell slot, but they're basically worthless until and unless they get mod to damage (like you will at 8th). But even then, you want one with an attack roll rather than a save. Unfortunately, clerics don't *get* one with an attack roll, which makes even light clerics suck unless they're using slots or weapons (until they get max Wis, end even then it's debatable).
It also didn't help that you were fighting kobolds, as their Dex saves are decent. As a cleric, you're definitely better off with weapons against them.

[MaxWilson]

That isn't a stat problem, it's a cleric problem. Try casting Bless on yourself and everyone else in combat, then use your mace or just Dodge. You will increase your own to-hit by +1-4 and everyone else's as well. (Well, two others anyway.)

[tcrudisi]

Players want to rule instead of taking point buy or the standard array? Let each player roll 1-2 stats. Have all the players use those stats.

For example, you have 4 players:

Player A rolls a 12
Player B rolls a 9
Player C rolls a 17 and 14
Player D rolls a 13 and 10

They all keep those stats, so they end up with: 17, 14, 13, 12, 10, 9.

[Demonic Spoon]

As I said I was working from memory...His CHA is probably higher.

As for my Cleric, yeah I am a bit disappointed in what he can do in combat. I think part of the problem with that as I have played Clerics from 2ed on and in previous additions a cleric could hold his own even at low levels. This cleric doesn't seem to have that ability at all. The DM got lucky on a few rolls and a 1/2 CR kobold with a dagger dropped me with in two rounds. While I understand luck was involved, my Cleric had his shield equipped was relying on his spells, which the DM saved against each time. Saves vs his spells are only 12 which most creatures have about a 50% chance to save. Just feels very under powered vs the ranger who was attacking at +7 and doing 1d8+5 dmg. Or the Paladin who was attacking at +6 and doing 1d8+4 dmg and hitting regularly while my cantrip is doing 1d8 flatly on a miss. The warlock is doing 1d10 but the same thing its all or nothing and his save against is 13, or his spell attack is +4.

The cleric class had been differentiated a lot. Light clerics specifically are very support-ish. Try war or tempest cleric if your goal is to smite stuff, or Paladin if you want a serious melee character.


Can I ask why you're using a cantrip for combat when you're in melee? Your Str is 14, which is acceptable. Even as a ligt cleric, your only damaging cantrip should really only be used when you ave no other options, especially before 8th level. You're better off using weapons before then considering you're in melee already.
1d6+2 if you hit (with +4) is better than 1d8 if they fail a save (at DC 12). Either way you're looking at about a 50% success rate, but the weapon is simply more effective. And you still have sacred flame for a ranged option when needed.


I think you're overstating the effectiveness of the mace. You said that each have about a 50% success rate...but the mace only does an average of one more damage on a hit.

[Shadow]

I think you're overstating the effectiveness of the mace. You said that each have about a 50% success rate...but the mace only does an average of one more damage on a hit.

Yes, but it has the benefit of requiring an attack roll, which can be buffed/advantaged to create a higher success rate than the save can achieve. And this is in addition to the higher average damage. And I was actually thinking handaxe rather than mace due to its thrown property, but six of one half a dozen of the other.

At low levels, weapons are simply better than sacred flame in almost every way. The same holds for arcane casters and most of their weapons/cantrips at low levels.

[Demonic Spoon]

Yes, but it has the benefit of requiring an attack roll, which can be buffed/advantaged to create a higher success rate than the save can achieve. And this is in addition to the higher average damage. And I was actually thinking handaxe rather than mace due to its thrown property, but six of one half a dozen of the other.

At low levels, weapons are simply better than sacred flame in almost every way. The same holds for arcane casters and most of their weapons/cantrips at low levels.

Depends on your stats and what buffs are available. With a few exceptions like Bless, most early buffs aren't AOE, and you're probably not going to spend a spell that buffs melee ability on your light cleric. Also depends on your stats. Not every player will put 14 in strength for their light cleric, at which point the cantrip is probably better.

In the case of OP, bless + using his mace was probably a better option, though.

[Shadow]

In the case of OP, bless + using his mace was probably a better option, though.

Even without bless the weapon is a better choice.
Kobold: 12 AC, +2 Dex save
Cleric in question: +4 attack, DC 12

The cleric hits the kobold on an 8 (65% success), and can gain advantage on the roll in some situations.
The kobold needs to roll a 10 on the save (45% success for the spell).
The weapon is 20% more accurate and deals 1 more damage on average. The weapon is simply better. Factor in possible advantage and possible buffs and the weapon is far better. Carry a few handaxes or whatever and you have ranged capability as well.
In most cases, weapons are just better than sacred flame at early levels, period.
Even if his Str was only a 12, it would deal the same average damage and still be more accurate against this enemy.

[D.U.P.A.]

One reason I dislike rolling for stats is that it causes some imbalance not only via characters, but also class builds. Most notably, the eternal battle between Str and Dex. If you roll high, especially if 18, you have no reason to pick Str fighter, but rather Dex fighter, because you'd have even armor better, having 12+5=17 AC compared to 16 AC of heavy armor user using the first affordable armor focusing on Str, everything at level 1. Sure you may not wield two handed, but you have all other goodies, as initiative, Dex STs, use of ranged weapons etc. Basically this way, frontline fighters would be Dex rather Str ones, which are usually thought to act as tanks. Str fighter will need to walk a long way to match the armor of his Dex counterpart.

[Pex]

This is exactly why point buy is a better system than rolling characters.
With point buy, the ones that "rolled great" don't exist, and thus the discrepancy in power levels is only a factor if one player min/maxes while another is more balanced (and even that discrepancy doesn't last very long).

Except 5E's Point Buy system, and all previous Point Buy systems before it, sucks donkey.

The recommended starting array is actually quite bad even if it was rolled.

[Yagyujubei]

Except 5E's Point Buy system, and all previous Point Buy systems before it, sucks donkey.

The recommended starting array is actually quite bad even if it was rolled.

I actually dont mind it at all...i mean after racials it's a simple matter to start the game with 16,16,13,12,10,9 and then at some point you can take a mini feat to increase that 13 to a 14.

for a normal power game I think that's about as strong as anyone should be.

[Kurald Galain]

Except 5E's Point Buy system, and all previous Point Buy systems before it, sucks donkey.

And why is that?

It is true that a rolled character in 5E will likely have a slightly better primary ability score, but that doesn't mean the point buy sucks.

[Doug Lampert]

And why is that?

It is true that a rolled character in 5E will likely have a slightly better primary ability score, but that doesn't mean the point buy sucks.

Almost every discussion I've ever seen on this board of rolled vs. point buy, if the random roll advocates described their ACTUAL methods of rolling rather than the rulebook method you got things that were NOT just slightly better.

Seriously, roll 5d6 keep 3 seven times, reroll all 1s and 2s.
Roll up 14 different arrays via something like standard methods and let everyone take the one they like best.
Roll 1d10+10 for every ability, and reroll if the results "suck".
Roll 12 different 4d6 keep 3 and take the best 6. Again rerolling if the result's "suck".

Note that "suck" isn't actually defined, what it seems to mean is "noticeably below average for this method", except "this method" includes throwing out below average results which in turn redefines average up, ext.... Which means that it ACTUALLY means, "noticeably below the best possible set of rolls".

Then there's the "old school" method where you suicide by orc till you have abilities you like. Dungeon Crawl Classics has formalized that one in its rules, you roll randomly, but you roll a bunch of random characters and only play one of them. Note that this works with any of the above too.

The rolling scheme mentioned in this thread involved rerolling unless you have at least one 14 and total modifiers of +4 or better. That's surprisingly close to BtB, but it still is substantially better in that most groups rolling up characters will have at least one reroll the book doesn't call for.

"Random" in play seems a lot more likely to mean "rolled" values of 18, 18, 17, 16, 14, 12 than anything close to a point buy or standard array.

So, yes, in terms of power, point buy by the book sucks compared actually used random rolls. Now, since the game was presumably balanced and designed with the sorts of values you get from standard arrays or point buy in mind, this is actually yet another argument in favor of standard arrays or point buy. There's a point to strength fighters (for example) and monks and unarmored barbarians have AC about like they're supposed to.

But if you like big numbers, then 5th edition is about the worst point buy ever produced for D&D. You simply can't get a value higher than a 15, and even rolling straight by the book with no rerolls almost 10% of all characters start with an 18.

[Gwendol]

Stats are important in 5e, since a lot hinges directly on the ability score (in 3.5 bonuses to saves, skill ranks, etc, lessens the impact of abilities). That said, some classes still perform well with rather crappy scores.

[D.U.P.A.]

Also physical stats are way more important than psychical (how to say?), because the latter ones you use only for spellcasting and maybe Wis for saves and perception (which more a physical skill actually). While physical skills determine your hit points, armor class, melee and ranged attacks and maneuvers, initiative and saves are more common, which all help your characters to survive, intellectual skills give you only some pointless skills, not contributing much to your character capabilities, unless for spellcasting, if any. Basically 15,15,15,8,8,8 array is quite viable for some non caster classes like barbarian.

[Kurald Galain]

But if you like big numbers, then 5th edition is about the worst point buy ever produced for D&D. You simply can't get a value higher than a 15, and even rolling straight by the book with no rerolls almost 10% of all characters start with an 18.
Yes, that's precisely the point. Rolling for stats gives you good odds of getting at least one 16+, whereas point buy gives you zero odds at a 16. Therefore rolling is better than point buy (even aside from the fact that people tend to use their own rolling rules that give way better results).


Basically 15,15,15,8,8,8 array is quite viable for some non caster classes like barbarian.
That array is viable for everyone. D&D has always rewarded maximizing your primary stat and dumping some of the others as low as the DM allows.

[Shadow]

<snip>

Well no wonder you think point buy sucks. You're comparing it to a bunch of house rules where everyone gets to roll 12 times with extra dice and rerolls.
Yeah, compared to that it's going to suck.
But compared to the standard method it's a better alternative IMO, because it results in no power variation between characters.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

Well no wonder you think point buy sucks. You're comparing it to a bunch of house rules where everyone gets to roll 12 times with extra dice and rerolls.
Yeah, compared to that it's going to suck.

I think that was his point. You're agreeing with him.

[Shadow]

I think that was his point. You're agreeing with him.

No, I'm comparing it to the standard official option, in which point buy is generally the better option.
He's comparing it to house rules specifically designed to be superior to a standard option and then claiming that the standard option sucks.
It's an unfair comparison.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

I know it's an unfair comparison. I'm pretty sure Doug knew that too, based on the opening paragraph of his post. I really think you're reading something other than his intent.

[Shadow]

I know it's an unfair comparison. I'm pretty sure Doug knew that too, based on the opening paragraph of his post. I really think you're reading something other than his intent.

His intent with that opening paragraph was to imply that everyone uses alternative house ruled rolling methods, which is untrue.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

His intent with that opening paragraph was to imply that everyone uses alternative house ruled rolling methods, which is untrue.

That I have no idea or data about.

[MaxWilson]

No, I'm comparing it to the standard official option, in which point buy is generally the better option.
He's comparing it to house rules specifically designed to be superior to a standard option and then claiming that the standard option sucks.
It's an unfair comparison.

The standard official method is 4d6 drop lowest or standard array. Point buy is a variant, but it's generally worse than 4d6 drop lowest, because 4d6 drop lowest always has the "suicide by orc" option unless there is some reason why your initial PC cannot be allowed to die. (E.g. high-level one-shot where you don't get replacement characters.) 4d6 drop lowest grants a 56.76% chance of getting at least one 16, which enables builds that are impossible in the standard array or point-buy.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

Point buy may be worse for the power and possible build options of the individual player. But is it worse for the DM, or for the table as a whole? It seems to me that point buy would give options while also maintaining consistency.

[Doug Lampert]

No, I'm comparing it to the standard official option, in which point buy is generally the better option.
He's comparing it to house rules specifically designed to be superior to a standard option and then claiming that the standard option sucks.
It's an unfair comparison.

Point buy is on average weaker than rolling, even if you roll by the book.

The average total on rolled is about 73.5 ability points, array is 72.
Well over half of all characters rolled 4d6k3 have a score of 16+. (Average is 15.66).

So no point buy character ever gets up to the AVERAGE or median rolled character's best ability!

The array is in fact basically the "average" highest, second highest, third highest, ext... rolls from a legal set of six, except all fractions are DROPPED rather than round nearest. This is weaker than rolling.

The point buy is BETTER for game-play, but it produces slightly weaker characters on average than by the book rolling, which in turn produces weaker characters than most actual rolling methods.

The appeal of die rolling is almost entirely in that it gives stronger characters than point buy, if they gave a default point buy that produced stronger characters than rolling, and almost no one will roll.

[Shadow]

The standard official method is 4d6 drop lowest or standard array. Point buy is a variant, but it's generally worse than 4d6 drop lowest, because 4d6 drop lowest always has the "suicide by orc" option unless there is some reason why your initial PC cannot be allowed to die. (E.g. high-level one-shot where you don't get replacement characters.) 4d6 drop lowest grants a 56.76% chance of getting at least one 16, which enables builds that are impossible in the standard array or point-buy.
The "standard method" is only rolling because of tradition. AL play uses point buy, so that's the real standard method, regardless of which one was actually labeled as standard in the PHB for tradition's sake.

Rolling doesn't enable builds that are impossible with point buy.
It enables the possibility of having higher stats. (adv rolling)
It also enables the possibility of having lower stats. (adv pt buy)
It has the same average median. (no adv)
It also creates a variance between characters. (adv pt buy)
And the "suicide by orc" option isn't a benefit at the table, it's a distraction and an impediment. (adv point buy)

Point buy is the better option.

[MaxWilson]

The "standard method" is only rolling because of tradition. AL play uses point buy, so that's the real standard method, regardless of which one was actually labeled as standard in the PHB for tradition's sake.

This is a curious way of looking at the issue which says a lot about your biases. "The standard method isn't standard because there is an online forum which uses a variant."

A more correct way of reading the situation would be that AL uses a variant for good reasons related to its goals and nature as an online forum. I'm told that AL uses other variants too including automatic resurrection for low-level characters and ability to retcon characters before 4th level. These are non-standard.



Rolling doesn't enable builds that are impossible with point buy.
It enables the possibility of having higher stats. (adv rolling)
It also enables the possibility of having lower stats. (adv pt buy)
It has the same average median. (no adv)
It also creates a variance between characters. (adv pt buy)
And the "suicide by orc" option isn't a benefit at the table, it's a distraction and an impediment. (adv point buy)


There exist builds which can only be created through rolling. This is trivial to demonstrate and impossible to refute. You even admit as much when you say it "creates a variance between characters." Even your claims about medians are false: the point-buy median is lower.

[Shadow]

This is a curious way of looking at the issue which says a lot about your biases. "The standard method isn't standard because there is an online forum which uses a variant."

A more correct way of reading the situation would be that AL uses a variant for good reasons related to its goals and nature as an online forum. I'm told that AL uses other variants too including automatic resurrection for low-level characters and ability to retcon characters before 4th level. These are non-standard.

AL isn't an online forum. It's the Adventurer's League, which is the official organized play for the game. It's Pathfinder Society, if you want to look at it comparatively.
That's the real standard way to play. The rolling is listed as standard for tradition's sake, and nothing more.


There exist builds which can only be created through rolling. This is trivial to demonstrate and impossible to refute. You even admit as much when you say it "creates a variance between characters." Even your claims about medians are false: the point-buy median is lower.

The point buy median is lower by 1.5 points, divided by 6 is 0.25. You round that down, because it's less than half. The point buy median is the same.
And please, give me an example of a "build" which is impossible with point buy. And please make it something that someone would actually play, not some theoretical garbage which has nine classes with a bunch of max casting stats.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

This is a curious way of looking at the issue which says a lot about your biases. "The standard method isn't standard because there is an online forum which uses a variant."

A more correct way of reading the situation would be that AL uses a variant for good reasons related to its goals and nature as an online forum. I'm told that AL uses other variants too including automatic resurrection for low-level characters and ability to retcon characters before 4th level. These are non-standard.

AL is an online forum? I thought it stood for Adventurer's League, the top-level name for public D&D events.

[MaxWilson]

AL is an online forum? I thought it stood for Adventurer's League, the top-level name for public D&D events.

[shrug] Apparently it does, point taken. It's certainly not in my PHB.

[Shadow]

[shrug] Apparently it does, point taken. It's certainly not in my PHB.

As I said, rolling is listed as the standard because of tradition. The real standard is point buy.

[MaxWilson]

As I said, rolling is listed as the standard because of tradition. The real standard is point buy.

Repeated assertions don't become more true through repetition. Did you miss the part about AL using other variant rules? Is auto-resurrection also standard in 5E?

No. AL is a venue, not a ruleset.

[Shadow]

Repeated assertions don't become more true through repetition. Did you miss the part about AL using other variant rules? Is auto-resurrection also standard in 5E?

No. AL is a venue, not a ruleset.

If you take a character to an organized play event sponsored by WotC/D&D, your character must use point buy. If your character dd not use point buy, it is not eligible for play. Any other variant rules apply to actual play in game. Character creation is the only one that absolutely must coincide with their rules or you are forbidden from even sitting at the table.
That makes point buy the default standard, regardless of what a line of text states in the PHB to appease traditionalists.

[Demonic Spoon]

Not that I disagree that rolling is mainly the standard due to tradition, AL is different. For one thing, aren't you expected to come to an AL game with a character pre-generated? Rolling doesn't work simply because it would be trivial for someone to just make up really high stats that are technically achievable but unlikely through rolling. Point buy ensures that a quick glance at a character's stats can tell you if he's cheating or not.

[MaxWilson]

If you take a character to an organized play event sponsored by WotC/D&D, your character must use point buy. If your character dd not use point buy, it is not eligible for play. Any other variant rules apply to actual play in game. Character creation is the only one that absolutely must coincide with their rules or you are forbidden from even sitting at the table.
That makes point buy the default standard for organized play, regardless of what a line of text states in the PHB to appease traditionalists.

Fixed that for you.

[Shadow]

Fixed that for you.

Just a heads up, I got an infraction for doing that to someone, so I wouldn't if I were you.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

So people like rolling because you can get higher stats than point buy. Fair enough. Plus you can just suicide characters if you don't like your stats. If you use a character template, then you can really compress the time it takes to make a new character. Just roll up your sheet, and for your first act you can use your 50' rope to hang yourself off the rafters of the inn you met the party at. Then grab one of your stacked character photocopies (with blank ability scores) and roll again.
The whole process takes less than a minute or two per attempt. But if that's too long, the DM could just assume you'll get there eventually and you can just take 18 for all your stats.

[Talderas]

Also physical stats are way more important than psychical (how to say?), because the latter ones you use only for spellcasting and maybe Wis for saves and perception (which more a physical skill actually). While physical skills determine your hit points, armor class, melee and ranged attacks and maneuvers, initiative and saves are more common, which all help your characters to survive, intellectual skills give you only some pointless skills, not contributing much to your character capabilities, unless for spellcasting, if any. Basically 15,15,15,8,8,8 array is quite viable for some non caster classes like barbarian.

Constitution is the only attribute that is universally useful regardless of class and that's strictly because of hit points. Physical stats are not used solely for ranged attacks. All spells with attack rolls use the casting attribute of the caster for their attack rolls rather than dexterity or strength (like thrown weapons). As far as saves go, dexterity and wisdom tend to get the most mileage followed closely by constitution with strength, intelligence, and charisma nabbing the short list of effects.

Any other discussion of the value of the stats is going to depend very much on your class (any stat), chosen armor type (the total value of dexterity), and chosen weapon type (whether strength/dexterity/casting attribute is appropriate). Any caster, for instance, should place the highest value on their casting attribute because it affects spell DCs and attack rolls among other potential things. A rogue will value dexterity because of his light armor and attack rolls and damage. A heavy armor fight will not care about dexterity but will care about strength.

[Kurald Galain]

AL isn't an online forum. It's the Adventurer's League, which is the official organized play for the game. It's Pathfinder Society, if you want to look at it comparatively.
That's the real standard way to play.
The AL needs to be around for much longer and have a much larger membercount than it does now, before it can be considered the standard of anything.

[Demonic Spoon]

Furthermore, I can't help but think that the player's handbook and the basic rules - you know, the fundamental documents for starting to play the game - would include some information in the initial chapters about AL if that was in fact the default way to play.

[Vogonjeltz]

I was making the more reasonable assumption that the player who rolled "mediocre" at least had a single roll higher than 12-13, and the players who rolled "well" didn't all get 18s.

what's the probability of having someone who rolls all 18s AND someone who rolls nothing above a 13 (and 3+ things below 10) in the same group?

The first probability is The chance of getting at least three 6's on four dice, six times in a row.
So, 25 combinations on 4 dice to get 18, with 1296 possible combinations. (1.9% chance of getting an 18 on 4 dice...so, that's low.)
Multiply that by itself 6 times to get the probability of this event occuring 6 times in a row. We get... 0.000 000 000 047045881 (that's ten 0's for those playing at home, or a 0.0000000047045881% chance of occurring).

I don't think I need to proceed to show how unlikely it is that this occurs, seeing as we're already at a 4 in a trillion chance of having all 18s.

I'm fine with the variation, there are going to be above average people and truly exceptional people. Anyone with multiple rolls above even a 15 would fall into that category.


I think you're overstating the effectiveness of the mace. You said that each have about a 50% success rate...but the mace only does an average of one more damage on a hit.

The enemy only has 5 hp, the Mace with +2 str mod is going to have a 66% chance of killing on a hit (successful attack roll). The Sacred Flame only has a 50% chance of killing on a hit (failed save). Sure, it's only 1 more damage, average, but the percentage of success is going up substantially.

Actually, with the 12 dex, he'd also be better off using a light crossbow. On a hit that has a 62.5% chance of killing the kobold. If he's not out of crossbow bolts or if he's in melee range, he shouldn't be using sacred flame at that level.


In most cases, weapons are just better than sacred flame at early levels, period.
Even if his Str was only a 12, it would deal the same average damage and still be more accurate against this enemy.

Agreed, this is in part because spell saves start at 8 before stats and proficiency. The only way the Cantrip is going to be better is if the caster has no str/dex to speak of.

[GiantOctopodes]

There are some logical fallacies that are in play here, the main one being that you are playing in a vacuum. You must remember that you have other players and a DM involved too, when 'optimizing' your stats. Here are some things to keep in mind during standard play:

1) Nobody's bad if everybody's bad. If everyone is terrible at something (let's say stealth), it will rarely to never be required, or if it is required for some crazy reason, the DCs will be balanced based upon everyone's terrible stats. Have an encampment of thousands of orcs between you and the artifact you need to get? Your DM knows your party, and built this world, so either you weren't meant to get it, and likely won't regardless of what you do, or there will be another way around or another solution if you look for it, or these particular orcs are going to be the stupid and unobservant kind who steal tons of barrels of liquor from a hapless caravan that wanders close, then universally get black out drunk, allowing even non-stealthy putzes to sneak through.

2) It's only as hard as your strongest member. Crazy AC and HP totals will tend to arise more around groups that produce very optimized characters that consistently hit with ease and dish out crazy damage. Insane requirements on knowledge checks only arise from characters that have gamed the system to where they know everything. Very high levels of optimization often result in a rebalancing of the base difficulty of tasks (whether intentional or not), so that there is still an array of difficulties (very hard to very easy) presented to that incredibly optimized character. That tends to result in those tasks being moved beyond the reach of anyone not similarly optimized.

3) No one task is going to be the focus of every session. Having 3 scores used for (as an obvious example) combat maxed out, and all other stats tanked, means that during the time you are not performing that action, you will be less useful, and less interested in the events transpiring, meaning you'll have less fun. Being Great at one thing is all well and good in theory, but being good or even just acceptable at a number of things can hugely increase the percentage of the playsession during which you are engaged. What's more, if you are fantastic at that one thing, unless the GM has done the things above, you'll breeze right through it, so it won't even be interesting when it happens. Not being interesting means it's likely to happen less often, too, because people like interesting, dramatic things to occur.

So, sure, on paper the 'correct' thing to do is make yourself fantastic at a few things, terribad at everything else, and rely on the diverse strengths of the party to overcome all possible challenges. However, that way makes it far more likely for scenarios to devolve into (whether in whole or part) minisodes of players acting individually in the thing they're great at, then sitting there bored during everything else. Having everyone on an even plane of suckiness makes it far more likely that everyone can contribute at any given time on multiple levels, and encourages you to work together to overcome your suckiness.

If your group is up for it, put my theories to the test. One week, have everyone change their stats so they have 3 12's and 3 10's. The next week, have everyone change it to where they have 3 18's and 3 4's, and see which session is more fun. I think you'll be very surprised.

tl;dr: Mechanically, stats matter a bunch. From a roleplaying standpoint, they can actually be a hindrance.

[Demonic Spoon]

what's the probability of having someone who rolls all 18s AND someone who rolls nothing above a 13 (and 3+ things below 10) in the same group?

The first probability is The chance of getting at least three 6's on four dice, six times in a row.
So, 25 combinations on 4 dice to get 18, with 1296 possible combinations. (1.9% chance of getting an 18 on 4 dice...so, that's low.)
Multiply that by itself 6 times to get the probability of this event occuring 6 times in a row. We get... 0.000 000 000 047045881 (that's ten 0's for those playing at home, or a 0.0000000047045881% chance of occurring).

I don't think I need to proceed to show how unlikely it is that this occurs, seeing as we're already at a 4 in a trillion chance of having all 18s.

I'm fine with the variation, there are going to be above average people and truly exceptional people. Anyone with multiple rolls above even a 15 would fall into that category.


When I said "all get 18s", I meant at least one 18. The chances of getting even a single 18 in your rolls is not all that great, and an 18 in your primary stat is going to be the most likely thing that will set you apart from others.

[Ehcks]

what's the probability of having someone who rolls all 18s AND someone who rolls nothing above a 13 (and 3+ things below 10) in the same group?

I don't know, but it happened to me. I was the guy who rolled a 3 with 5d6b3. I was given three rerolls before the DM just took the dice from me.

I'd rather play point buy if I can find a new group.

[Knaight]

Also, an "average" roll on 3d6s is 10.5(50% of possible combinations should be 10-11), I'm not sure mathematically how dropping the fourth effects it, but I doubt it's by more than the average of an entire die.

13 is probably above average

Dropping the 4th kicks the average to about 13 (there is a 48.8% chance of 13+, the mean is 12.24). Moreover, having 1 13 is very much not above average. Each of the 6 stats has a 25.9% chance of being 13+, meaning they have a 74.1% chance of being 12-. 0.741^6 is .177, so even with 3d6 rolls there's an 82.3% chance of at least one 13. With a dropped 4th die, it goes up to about 93%.

Or you can think of it this way. With a 4th die, the mean is 12.24 with a standard deviation of 2.85. For six rolls to all go well under a fraction of one standard deviation up is pretty bad. With only 4 dice the mean is 10.50 and the standard deviation 2.96, for six rolls to all close to but under 1 standard deviation up is also pretty bad.

For reference, anydice code like this can be used for various die combinations to look at expected totals and distributions of all 6 stats.
output [highest 6 of 7d[highest 3 of 4d6]]
output [highest 6 of 7d(3d6)]
output 6d[highest 3 of 4d6]
output 6d(3d6)

[GiantOctopodes]

When I said "all get 18s", I meant at least one 18. The chances of getting even a single 18 in your rolls is not all that great, and an 18 in your primary stat is going to be the most likely thing that will set you apart from others.

Correct. People refer to the "almost 10% chance of getting an 18", but somehow fail to extrapolate that to realize that 90% of all characters will *not* get an 18. In fact, for 50% of players choosing to roll stats, the highest stat they will end up with is a 15. Certainly, you can do better, but it's not at all guaranteed. My preferred system is standard array, for the reasons mentioned in my previous post.

[INDYSTAR188]

I can't tell you how many times I did this or 5 stats at 13 or less with 1 higher. I'm cursed.

Appropriate username then. :smallsmile:

[Knaight]

Correct. People refer to the "almost 10% chance of getting an 18", but somehow fail to extrapolate that to realize that 90% of all characters will *not* get an 18. In fact, for 50% of players choosing to roll stats, the highest stat they will end up with is a 15. Certainly, you can do better, but it's not at all guaranteed. My preferred system is standard array, for the reasons mentioned in my previous post.

With a dropped 4th die, 56.8% of players will end up with a 16 or higher. 20.6% will end up with a maximum of 14 or lower. That leaves only 22.6% having the highest stat at 15. Without the dropped 4th die, 54.6% will have a maximum of 14 or lower, and 24.8% will have a maximum of 16 or higher. That leaves only 21.6% having a maximum of 15.

Either way, that 50% figure is entirely wrong.

[GiantOctopodes]

With a dropped 4th die, 56.8% of players will end up with a 16 or higher. 20.6% will end up with a maximum of 14 or lower. That leaves only 22.6% having the highest stat at 15. Without the dropped 4th die, 54.6% will have a maximum of 14 or lower, and 24.8% will have a maximum of 16 or higher. That leaves only 21.6% having a maximum of 15.

Either way, that 50% figure is entirely wrong.

Sorry, let me correct that- nearly 50% (43.2%) have a max stat of 15 or lower. My point was merely that it is not an automatic improvement in stats over standard array or point buy, it can (and often does) end up the same or worse. There, that is the point I was trying to make.

[Kurald Galain]

With a dropped 4th die, 56.8% of players will end up with a 16 or higher.

Don't forget that these players can get +2 from their race to start with an 18-or-higher, and that stats only go up to 20. So your odds of starting at the maximum for the entire game are actually pretty good.

[Knaight]

Sorry, let me correct that- nearly 50% (43.2%) have a max stat of 15 or lower. My point was merely that it is not an automatic improvement in stats over standard array or point buy, it can (and often does) end up the same or worse. There, that is the point I was trying to make.

The 16+:15- ratio is 1.31:1. That's a pretty substantial offset.

As for rolling not being an automatic improvement, that is true, but the odds are pretty good. Then the odds get skewed because of survivability differences (more play time with more survivable characters which have better stats), and it gets exacerbated.


Don't forget that these players can get +2 from their race to start with an 18-or-higher, and that stats only go up to 20. So your odds of starting at the maximum for the entire game are actually pretty good.
Point buy gets you to 17 with that +2 as well; the racial bonuses can be safely neglected as they are the exact same in either case.

[GiantOctopodes]

Yes, if you're a gambler, it's better to roll the dice (pun intended).

However, my larger point in all of this was that higher stats and greater variance are not automatically an improvement. See my post on the last page. Putting mechanics aside for a moment and stepping back and realizing what game it is we're playing, and how it's played, having everyone on the same playing field is advantageous in a large number of ways.

[Knaight]

However, my larger point in all of this was that higher stats and greater variance are not automatically an improvement. See my post on the last page. Putting mechanics aside for a moment and stepping back and realizing what game it is we're playing, and how it's played, having everyone on the same playing field is advantageous in a large number of ways.

You'll have no argument from me on this point. I'm not a fan of randomness in character generation.

[Invader]

Are stats more important than a feat every 4 levels, especially with the plethora of feats that are assumed to be in the upcoming DMG?

Personally I feel like given the choice I'll be choosing a feat over ASI's almost every time short of having abysmal scores to start.

[INDYSTAR188]

Don't forget that these players can get +2 from their race to start with an 18-or-higher, and that stats only go up to 20. So your odds of starting at the maximum for the entire game are actually pretty good.

Is this a significant problem? I was more concerned about someone ending up with multiple negative modifiers, which I think is worse for balance than a high attack/damage stat. Especially in a game where you roll for saves.

[Starchild7309]

Are stats more important than a feat every 4 levels, especially with the plethora of feats that are assumed to be in the upcoming DMG?

This is another question I was very curious about. Is bumping my Wis to 17 worth it over taking a feat. And another question is do you think they are going to require certain stats to take particular feats?

[Invader]

This is another question I was very curious about. Is bumping my Wis to 17 worth it over taking a feat. And another question is do you think they are going to require certain stats to take particular feats?

I'm leaning towards no since there's not going to be a glut of ways to increase them like there was in 3.X.

[MaxWilson]

This is another question I was very curious about. Is bumping my Wis to 17 worth it over taking a feat. And another question is do you think they are going to require certain stats to take particular feats?

They already do.

[Invader]

They already do.

I should have said no to the extent that they did it in 3.X.

[Pex]

As a player, I don't demand an 18 at 1st level if the DM/game doesn't force an 8. Corollary, I don't demand at 18 at first level, but I loathe being absolutely refused the possibility. I don't mind having an 8 for my character, but I loathe being forced to have one. 5E Point Buy does both.

It is not a catastrophe for a player character to have an 18 at first level. A player is not a munchkin, having badwrongfun, rollplaying, or whatever other derogatory term you have for wanting/liking an 18 at first level. The math of the game does matter, and there's nothing horrific with being that good at something mathematically.

It is also not a catastrophe for a player character to have an 8. He's not The Suck. He is not hopeless. He is not doomed to die. It is a mathematical disadvantage, but it is not a conglomerate of pathetic incompetence. It is also not the missing Eleventh Commandment that a player character must have an 8.

In 5E every ability score matters because of the saving throw and skill system. There is no dump stat. Every 8 hurts. Only experience can tell me if it hurts more than an 18 helps, but you're forbidden an 18 by Point Buy anyway so already 8s hurt more.

The Point Buy concept is sound. It's the implementation that's screwed up. You're always given a default value that makes a rather sucky array. 5E is the worst offender. I will partially take back what I said in that 4E and Pathfinder Point Buys relatively work. 4E works for its given system since it allows a class to excel in both of its needed scores and because saving throws/attack AC use the better of two scores minimizing the effects of the inherent zero sum game. In Pathfinder, default is you are never forced an 8. You can choose to have one if you want for extra points. 18 is prohibitively expensive, but you can at least get one when you include racial modifiers. The recommended 20 build points can sort of work even for a MAD class, though 25 is better. However, don't even think of playing a paladin or monk with a 15 Point Buy.

[Shadow]

5E Point Buy does both.

Point buy does no such thing.
Standard array gives you an 8. Standard array is one of the possible combinations available from a point buy, but it is not the only point buy available.
There's a difference.
If you want to use point buy, you aren't forced to take an 8, like you claim.

[Pex]

Alright, "forced" is too strong a word when taken literally. "Highly incentive" when all scores start at 8 costing you 12 points to make them all 10 leaving you only 15 points to work with.

15, 13, 11, 10, 10, 10

Racial modifiers pigeon hole to particular classes. Casters don't care, but Point Buy always favored casters. Moon Druids aren't hurt at all. Fighter might be ok. Choose ST or DX, can't have both if you want the CO. DX Fighter can work in 5E, I'll grant that, but Eldritch Knight only for buffing. Barbarian, no. Paladin, no. Ranger, no. Monk, almost but no. Choose hit points or AC, not both for monk.

Saving throws are bad, but 5E's system is part of the problem just as much if not more than Point Buy. Different topic.

If you want to improve your ability score based class features to decent, you need to make at least one of those 10s an 8, the 11 for the extra point.

You're still not getting an 18.

[Shadow]

You're still not getting an 18.

You don't need an 18. You get ASIs that will get you to 18 and then 20.
And taking a 15 from point buy is poor planning.
14, 14, 13, 12, 10, 10
with racial mods you're usually looking at 16, 14, 14, 12, 10, 10
Two ASIs and you have your 20, leaving you three more (at minimum) to work with.
That's literally a good enough spread to make absolutely any character, and make it work. Even MAD gish types. That spread works.
What's the problem?

[Pex]

You don't need an 18. You get ASIs that will get you to 18 and then 20.
And taking a 15 from point buy is poor planning.
14, 14, 13, 12, 10, 10
with racial mods you're usually looking at 16, 14, 14, 12, 10, 10
Two ASIs and you have your 20, leaving you three more (at minimum) to work with.
That's literally a good enough spread to make absolutely any character, and make it work. Even MAD gish types. That spread works.
What's the problem?

It's not about need. It's the forbiddance of getting an 18 at 1st level. With dice rolling, you at least have a chance.

Humans have to buy a 15 if they want a 16. Other races better have their racial +2 in the stat they need for their class or else they don't get a 16, pigeonholing them into specific classes.

[Kurald Galain]

Are stats more important than a feat every 4 levels, especially with the plethora of feats that are assumed to be in the upcoming DMG?
No, they're not. With the current feat set, you may run out of good feats at high level and instead increase your primary ability, but increasing your other five abilities really isn't worth it compared to a feat.


Is this a significant problem? I was more concerned about someone ending up with multiple negative modifiers, which I think is worse for balance than a high attack/damage stat. Especially in a game where you roll for saves.
I don't think it's a problem, but I'd like having some more growth potential in ability scores.

[Longcat]

It's not about need. It's the forbiddance of getting an 18 at 1st level. With dice rolling, you at least have a chance.


You are not supposed to have an 18 or higher at Level 1. The game is balanced around the assumption that you start new characters at a maximum attribute modifier of +3 (16/17).

[INDYSTAR188]

You are not supposed to have an 18 or higher at Level 1. The game is balanced around the assumption that you start new characters at a maximum attribute modifier of +3 (16/17).

Can you please cite the section of the PHB where they say this specifically? Is it overpowered to give a starting array of 15, 14, 14, 13, 12, 10?

[Kurald Galain]

You are not supposed to have an 18 or higher at Level 1. The game is balanced around the assumption that you start new characters at a maximum attribute modifier of +3 (16/17).

...not that you'll notice the difference during gameplay :smallbiggrin:

[Killer Angel]

Are stats more important than a feat every 4 levels, especially with the plethora of feats that are assumed to be in the upcoming DMG?


That depends from the feat... a stat increase cannot be a trap! :smallwink:

[Pex]

You are not supposed to have an 18 or higher at Level 1. The game is balanced around the assumption that you start new characters at a maximum attribute modifier of +3 (16/17).

Yet, by the book, I can get lucky and roll an 18, put it in Strength, play a Dragonborn, and start 1st level with a 20 right there. The game does not forbid having an 18 at 1st level. Only the variant rule Point Buy system does, and it's not a crime against humanity for a 1st level character to have an 18.

[Raimun]

Yeah, stats are pretty important when it comes to efficiency of your character. Especially in this edition, since there's not so many options to raise them... and stat increases are also competing with Feats, if they are used.

I still think you should roll your stats with 4d6, drop lowest. It's much more interesting that way and barring freak truly horrendous stat rolls, most people roll just fine. I haven't checked if there's such a rule in 5e but in all the tables I've played in, there has been an understanding that if you roll really bad, you get to roll your stats again. It's supposed to a be a game of heroic fantasy, not a depressing, angsty art movie.

... Besides I always roll just fine or even better stats, so I don't see the problem. :smallconfused:

[Tvtyrant]

Stats are not as important as in 4E, but maybe more so than 3.5. Mostly because there are no ways to boost your stats outside of leveling, so your base score is more important. No getting +10 to a stat from items (wish books and score boosters).

Personally I simply have my players write down what they think is fair for their characters to start at. It seems like the most beneficial system.

[Raimun]

Oh yeah... and point buy makes things even more imbalanced. Especially when you compare SAD and MAD classes.

With low point buy (and let's face it, point buys are often set low, "to make things fair") :

A wizard needs just one good stat (18-20 Int) and then he has the potential to be one of the best casters, ever.

A monk with the same amount of point buy does not have the potential to be one of the best melee specialists ever. He does not even have the potential to be a decent monk.

So, if you had a fancy to play a wizard or sorcerer, low point buy does not really hinder you but if you wanted to play a class with different flavor and multiple ability dependencies, you will struggle even when you're supposed to be in your element.

If the point buy is really high?

Wizards don't even notice the benefit but MAD-melee specialists will be competent in their job... and perhaps even give full casters a run for their money.