Bad idea to get minimum 10 scores?

[JohnDoe]

I've been thinking about going with a minimum of 10's on my ability scores.

At first I was considering it for new players, so that they wouldn't need to remember their modifiers as much.

Rather than going 15/15/15/8/8/8 for some sort of optimization, would bringing scores up to a 10 be a bad idea?

The main reason would just be for simplicity. Roll what I Roll. Maybe I'm OCD but I like the idea of not having Modifiers on some stats.

_________________________________

I usually play a V Human, not only because they're good, but because I like the idea of humans living brief lives and striving to form lasting institutions.

This seems like a case where the standard +1 to all stats human would be appropriate.

That would bring stats to a 16/16/14/11/10/10 if I recall correctly.

Any better way to do this? Not worth it? Detrimental?

[endur]

Standard human would help, as you mention.

Minimum 10 is a good idea. It means that you are all around at least average in every ability score. This is particularly important if your character is going to spend any time on his own away from the party. The more time you spend alone, the more well-rounded you will want to be (minimize your weaknesses).

It also helps against ability drain (although there aren't many ability drain creatures and spells currently).

What level you are starting at, and what class you play, and whether feats can be used for ASIs may also have an impact on this. If you are building a high level fighter, and not using feats, you will have lots of ASIs to use.

[Petrocorus]

I've been thinking about going with a minimum of 10's on my ability scores.

At first I was considering it for new players, so that they wouldn't need to remember their modifiers as much.

Rather than going 15/15/15/8/8/8 for some sort of optimization, would bringing scores up to a 10 be a bad idea?

The main reason would just be for simplicity. Roll what I Roll. Maybe I'm OCD but I like the idea of not having Modifiers on some stats.

I personally forbid more than one stat under 10. To avoid too much optimisation and because i find ludicrous the idea of the super-train fighter with a poor Dex or a poor Str or the Cleric with a high Wis but awful Int.
Even with this, it's really not that difficult to get two 16 with racial adjustments, or one 16 ad two 14.



I usually play a V Human, not only because they're good, but because I like the idea of humans living brief lives and striving to form lasting institutions.

This seems like a case where the standard +1 to all stats human would be appropriate.


There not much love for Standard human (Suman?) here, but with his racial adjutment allow to get five 14 and an 11. There probably some builds where this is better than a feat. Bard maybe.

[Rusvul]

I usually don't mind dumping the things I don't need. Not only does it make me stronger mechanically, but sometimes it's fun to roleplay a character with an actual weakness, as opposed to a relative weakness. Still, it's very much a personal choice thing- If you like to play a more well-rounded character then go right ahead.

[JellyPooga]

There's nothing really wrong with going for 10's as a minimum; it's certainly not going to cripple you're character. I'm playing in a game at the moment with a 14/14/14/12/14/8 character (after racials) and I'm easily keeping place with the others who are rocking the 16's and 17's. You don't really need the high scores for your primary stats so much in 5ed, if you know how to get around it, which in turn makes it easier to balance out your secondaries and tertiaries.

I've got a lot of love for standard Human. Yes the Feat and Skill VHuman grant are very nice and few builds really need an all-round stat block, but +1 to every stat is insanely useful if used right. It lets you play without a weakness, which will appeal to many, whilst retaining your strengths. Solid, solid choice IMO.

[lordshadowisle]

From an optimization perspective, since you'll always max your primary stat(s), your decision is really between bumping up a secondary stat to 16 or 14, or your worst stats to 10. Generally, increasing the secondary stat is better than your dump stats, because dump stats don't come into play that often, and the extra +1 isn't going to be much help anyway. There are exceptions; if your dump stat is DEX (for a STR-based build), getting it to 10 can be worth it as it's a common save AND boosts initiative. The same goes for WIS, to a lesser extent.

[Ogre Mage]

I personally am not a fan of the 15/15/15/8/8/8 stat array. I like min-maxing characters and think it is perfectly fine to have one score below 10, possibly even two in extreme cases. But it can be taken too far. And many DMs will look at a Int 8/Wis 8/Cha 8 warrior or a Str 8/Wis 8/Cha 8 wizard and find a way to exploit it. When you have that many weaknesses it is not that difficult.

[OldTrees1]

From the optimization perspective:
It is good to evaluate this separately if your race is a +4(Ex:+2Str/+2Con or +2Cha/+1/+1) or a +3(Ex:+2Dex/+1Wis) race with respect to ability scores.
15/15/15/08/08/08 (+3 race) -> 17/16/15 -> 18/16/16
15/15/14/10/08/08 (+4 race) -> 17/16/15 -> 18/16/16
15/15/13/10/10/08 (+3 race) -> 17/16/13 -> 18/16/14
15/14/13/10/10/10 (+4 race) -> 17/15/14 -> 18/16/14
As you can see, switching 3 "8"s to 3 "10"s changes the parity from a "+3" race to a "+4" race. (parity also changes once per planned 1/2 feat)

If we compare switching 2 "8"s to 2 "10"s we see a drop of 2 in the tertiary stat. So that is a -1 modifier
Switching 3 "8"s to 3 "10"s would have the same cost but also change parity for a total drop of 3 in the tertiary stat. So that is a -2 modifier

So having minimum 10 barely hurts +4 races (Mountain Dwarf, V Humans, Half Elf) but does hurt +3 races more (unless you wanted a 1/2 feat in which case reverse that) however in neither case is it a bad idea(-2 to your tertiary stat's modifier is still playable). Obviously +6 races (S Human) act like +4 races.

[darkrose50]

Standard Human: 14/14/14/14/14/08. Iron Heroes assumed the point-buy would allow for 14/14/14/14/14/14 (7*6=42). I think 13/13/13/13/13/13 would be a good number to aim for (5*6=30) . . . that way Humans could get 14/14/14/14/14/14 if they wanted.

[PotatoGolem]

I don't think it's a terrible idea- as people have mentioned, you don't need to have super-high stats in 5e. Even more so if you're a fighter or moon druid.

RP-wise, though, I really like having some low stats. The key is to actually play them. For instance, my Paladin has Wis 6 and Dex 8. So I play him as extremely foolhardy and impulsive, and with a strong aversion to dodging or skulking around. We sailed into a lightning storm and he was the guy on the bow of the ship waving his greatsword at the sky and mocking the caster calling lightning while the rest of the party hid belowdecks (OOtA aura is the only reason he's still alive after that particular decision). As long as you play to your stats, I think low scores make for more interesting characters than someone who's not bad at anything. I agree though that it's obnoxious to roll a 15/15/15/8/8/8 barb who's going to still make smart tactical decisions and reasoned plans because the player isn't a dolt.