It's okay to have low scores

[Schwann145]

I feel like capping Ability Scores at 20 has simply made it so that, "if you're not close to/at 20 in your primary stats, you're not good" is too much of a rule, so to speak.

Chasing Ability Scores that had no cap as high as you could get them was problematic in it's own way, admittedly, but wouldn't it be nice if having 14s in everything felt fine?

[animorte]

You get that nonsense out of here. :smallconfused:

No, seriously though, I think having a 14 in everything is quite reliable. There are plenty other ways to accomplish optimization outside of just an extra +1/+2.

Above all, if you're enjoying yourself, that's what matters. For some people, bigger numbers = more fun. The problem is when they try to convince other people that you can't have fun otherwise.

That's a big appeal for many games (video, card, etc.) in which the primary form of progression goes from double digits to six.

[Kane0]

Its just human nature to desire the best possible chance of success, so chase the high number. It doesnt matter what you set the boundaries to be, people will want to reach and break them.
You're right though, the game itself runs just fine with a 14 instead of an 18

[stoutstien]

Has it officially been long enough for people to rediscover OSRs?

[Sigreid]

14 as your highest is fine for the base conceit of the game. But, players being players they tend to go for each miniscule edge. As a response DMs up the difficulty because "steamrolling is boring" and players almost inevitably seek that next edge. It's the circle of gaming.

[Psyren]

wouldn't it be nice if having 14s in everything felt fine?

Uh... doesn't it? This is the one edition where that could actually work.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The core game math never assumes you hit 20 in any stat. It's totally fine with you ending at 18, and that only in mid T3.

Now the players and the common play style of pushing for Deadly xN encounters? Yeah, that doesn't work so well with that. But that's not the game's fault and unless you just didn't get any benefit from higher stats it won't ever change.

[Skrum]

Sure, any score is fine. Any class can dump their main stat, dump Con, and use only non-proficient gear and be "fine." You'll still be fighting rats at level 3, but hey, if that's what the DM is up for and all the players are having a good time, sure, it's "fine."

But I personally don't really like the sound of that, and I'm guessing most players feel similarly, at least directionally. Most of us don't play to pretend to be incompetent nincompoops for hours and hours and hours.

[truemane]

I agree that 5E works well with 14's across the board. And it is nice when players aren't obsessed with mechanical optimization.

Although, somewhat ironically, 5E is the edition I'm most comfortable just letting players choose their own stats. The amount of trouble a 20 (even a couple of 20's) causes me as a DM pales in comparison to how much fun players tend have with one.

The 'economy' of 5E basically means that higher stats just mean more Feats. And Feats tend to be the fun part.

[KorvinStarmast]

Re: It's okay to have low scores Is this a thread about Soccer or Hockey? :smallyuk:

[animorte]

Is this a thread about Soccer or Hockey? :smallyuk:
Actually, I figured it might be seeking new golf recruits.

[Cheesegear]

Now the players and the common play style of pushing for Deadly xN encounters?

Partial disagree. I think the greater problem is the mutual arms race:

Players make strong characters, because playing a weak character that doesn't contribute, sucks.
DM makes a hard encounter.
Players don't find it challenging.
DM makes a harder encounter.
A character dies. The player makes an even stronger character to make up for the last one.
DM escalates encounters.
Character dies. Escalate.
Fights are too easy. Escalate.

At a certain point the DM is making encounters so difficult that the players have to optimise if they want to keep up. Ignoring that it was they - not the DM - who started the power creep.

Player makes a Fighter with Polearm Master and Sentinel.*
DM sighs. Makes encounters where hordes of hostiles have Ranged Attacks.
...
The Wizard dies because the DM made an encounter that is "challenging" for the Fighter, but also happens to be Super Effective against Wizards.

Everyone at the table power-games, or no-one should.

*I'll admit that that isn't an example about 20s, but same thing.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Partial disagree. I think the greater problem is the mutual arms race:

Players make strong characters, because playing a weak character that doesn't contribute, sucks.
DM makes a hard encounter.
Players don't find it challenging.
DM makes a harder encounter.
A character dies. The player makes an even stronger character to make up for the last one.
DM escalates encounters.
Character dies. Escalate.
Fights are too easy. Escalate.

At a certain point the DM is making encounters so difficult that the players have to optimise if they want to keep up. Ignoring that it was they - not the DM - who started the power creep.

Player makes a Fighter with Polearm Master and Sentinel.*
DM sighs. Makes encounters where hordes of hostiles have Ranged Attacks.
...
The Wizard dies because the DM made an encounter that is "challenging" for the Fighter, but also happens to be Super Effective against Wizards.

Everyone at the table power-games, or no-one should.

*I'll admit that that isn't an example about 20s, but same thing.

I don't disagree that it's a mutual arms race. But some tables start quite a bit down that spiral, sometimes intentionally and sometimes not. And yes, the issue with the optimization arms race is that it requires everyone to participate or else Bad Things Happen.

[Composer99]

I'm somewhat reminded of AD&D 2e's defence of Rath (the mediocrity trotted out on page 18 of its PHB). Of course, 5e!Rath would actually be vastly more capable than 2e!Rath with the exact same ability scores - to my mind, at least. The 14 Dexterity in 2e has no mechanical effect, but in 5e Rath could be a passable rogue or wizard - especially if those scores as shown in the AD&D 2e PHB did not already include racial/lineage/species mods (it's implied they don't). 5e!Rath's only glaring shortcoming would be his Wisdom score because of the prevalence of Wisdom saves.

All that said, the game expects at least some advancement of your ability scores (your primary one in particular) as you gain levels, so a more apt way of putting things is "it's okay to start with low scores". You only need one bump to your primary every two tiers of play, mind.

Oh, and of course a 14 is probably already emulating extraordinary human achievement, so is it actually really that "low"? Or does it just seem that way because DMs insist on ratcheting up DCs because of expertise and guidance?

[Psyren]

Partial disagree. I think the greater problem is the mutual arms race:

Players make strong characters, because playing a weak character that doesn't contribute, sucks.
DM makes a hard encounter.
Players don't find it challenging.
DM makes a harder encounter.
A character dies. The player makes an even stronger character to make up for the last one.
DM escalates encounters.
Character dies. Escalate.
Fights are too easy. Escalate.

At a certain point the DM is making encounters so difficult that the players have to optimise if they want to keep up. Ignoring that it was they - not the DM - who started the power creep.

Player makes a Fighter with Polearm Master and Sentinel.*
DM sighs. Makes encounters where hordes of hostiles have Ranged Attacks.
...
The Wizard dies because the DM made an encounter that is "challenging" for the Fighter, but also happens to be Super Effective against Wizards.

Everyone at the table power-games, or no-one should.

*I'll admit that that isn't an example about 20s, but same thing.

It's not a neverending spiral though - it stops at an equilibrium of mutual fun.

3.5 had a way higher ceiling than 5e, and a lot of us here knew it. CoDzilla, Dweomerkeeper, Incantatrix, Planar Shepherd, Omnificer, Wish and the Word, Pun-Pun etc. And a DM who is really trying can challenge even those. But I think for most of us, just because you can reach those heights doesn't make them fun to keep chasing. And so, most groups stop short of that. How far short varied from table to table, but each would find their own fun.

[firelistener]

Each +1 to a modifier nets a 5% increase to success on d20 rolls, so it really isn't that big a deal. The difference between a 14 (+2) and a 20 (+5) is being only 15% more likely to hit something or cause enemies to fail saving throws. It makes a difference, definitely, but it isn't insurmountable. You have things like proficiency bonus, fighting styles, tactical ways to get advantage, and spells like Magic Missile to help make sure you can deal some damage with lower stats. And monster AC is built around it too. Even an Adult Red Dragon (CR17) only has an AC of 19, so at level 17 with your proficiency bonus of +6, you are likely still going to be landing some decent hits.

[Rukelnikov]

Uh... doesn't it? This is the one edition where that could actually work.

In 2e 14s across the board would have been a pretty decent statline, numerical impact from stats was minor barring exceptional rolls.


It's not a neverending spiral though - it stops at an equilibrium of mutual fun.

3.5 had a way higher ceiling than 5e, and a lot of us here knew it. CoDzilla, Dweomerkeeper, Incantatrix, Planar Shepherd, Omnificer, Wish and the Word, Pun-Pun etc. And a DM who is really trying can challenge even those. But I think for most of us, just because you can reach those heights doesn't make them fun to keep chasing. And so, most groups stop short of that. How far short varied from table to table, but each would find their own fun.

I agree, but people that maybe haven't played games where you choose your power level sometimes have the mindset of being "as powerful as possible"

[Dark.Revenant]

Occasionally, your modifier dictates how many times you can use a major feature like Bardic Inspiration; in these cases, having a low stat makes the game less interesting.

[AvatarVecna]

I feel like capping Ability Scores at 20 has simply made it so that, "if you're not close to/at 20 in your primary stats, you're not good" is too much of a rule, so to speak.

Chasing Ability Scores that had no cap as high as you could get them was problematic in it's own way, admittedly, but wouldn't it be nice if having 14s in everything felt fine?

The problem isn't that you're capped at 20 - the problem is that another +1 to your best stat mod is one of, if not far and away, the single most important thing your character can do. In fact, the cap is the only reason casters ever spend attributes on anything other than their primary casting stat; if the cap was done away with, every caster guide would be "put in an 18, get a race that gives +2, and put every ASI into it, otherwise you're throwing". The reason those guides are like that now is because once you hit 20, you're literally not allowed to keep one-trick-ponying. We even have a litmus test for this: 3.5 attributes were uncapped, and unless spending on your casting stat was tanking your build so hard it put you in danger of dying from ability damage, you pumped your casting stat no matter what.

A wizard 7 (Attributes 14/14/14/18/14/14) levels up and has an ASI to spend. If he puts it into Con +2, he's got +1 on important saves (constitution), +1 on easy saves (concentration), and 58 HP (instead of 50). If he puts it into Int +2, he's got +1 to his best save (meh), +1 to knowledge skills (meh), gets to pick an extra superpower every morning (highly valuable), maybe some random subclass feature has improved slightly (maybe nothing, maybe something useful?) has +5% chance of affecting enemies with his attack superpowers (almost certainly critically necessary no matter how high his chances already are), which is effectively +5% chance of not wasting his turn and a spell slot.

A wizard with Int 10 is 25% more likely to waste his turn than a wizard with Int 20 if they both cast a single target spell. And a wizard with Int 20 is 25% more likely to waste his turn than a wizard Int 30 if they both cast a single target spell. Unless you're playing a casting-stat-neutral build that focuses on buffs/healing/summoning, or other tactics that don't depend on attack rolls or saving throws (very limited kinds of BFC), you need every point of Int you can get. Same for Cleric/Druid with Wis, same for Bard/Sorcerer/Warlock with Cha.

Or rather, more to the point: you don't need it, but it's pretty objectively more useful than basically anything else you could spend the ASI on. "+5% chance to not waste your turn and a high level spell slot" is pretty dang good.

You're watching everybody bash their head on the ceiling, and assuming the reason is because the existence of the ceiling compels them to jump as high as possible when they otherwise wouldn't. The reason they are bashing their heads against the ceiling is because it is to their advantage to maximize how high they can jump; the ceiling isn't causing the jumps, it's actually the only thing keeping them from going into orbit.

[Zuras]

Anybody who had fun playing a PC with 14s in their primary stats wasn’t playing a monk.

[AvatarVecna]

I'll also say: yeah, it's okay to have low scores, especially in 5e. Yes, investing in your main stat is almost certainly objectively better than anything else you could spend the resource on, but it's also just kinda unnecessary in general; you should invest at least a little bit unless you're building to not need it at all, but if you've got a 16, you're not suffering that lack of 4 points all that much. It's a 10% chance of losing some spells and wasting some turns, but 5e's power floor is high enough that even intentionally bad characters or pure gimmick builds can carry their weight without being a huge hindrance.

(This was less true in 3.5 when the floor was "you would objectively be more useful dead", the ceiling was "making up whatever mechanics you want", and the average was "not quite pulling their weight but being underdogs is fine".)

There's nothing wrong with wanting your wizard to have a bit more muscle, or be a bit tougher. Those have positive value, they objectively improve your character. Sure, they don't improve your character as much as if you'd invested more heavily in the one thing wizards are known for, but if your magic is already at "good enough" (and it's very very hard to not be at "good enough" in 5e), then feel free to spend it on something else. Linguist lets you make codes! Brawny lets your wizard become a professional wrestler and weight lifter! If you're a mountain dwarf, you could spend that ASI getting to cast in heavy armor! That's pretty nifty I would say. Not as mathematically effective as "+5% chance to not waste your turn", but it's cool!

[MinimanMidget]

Sure, any score is fine. Any class can dump their main stat, dump Con, and use only non-proficient gear and be "fine." You'll still be fighting rats at level 3, but hey, if that's what the DM is up for and all the players are having a good time, sure, it's "fine."

But I personally don't really like the sound of that, and I'm guessing most players feel similarly, at least directionally. Most of us don't play to pretend to be incompetent nincompoops for hours and hours and hours.

Yeah, a lot of people in this thread seem to be ignoring actual maths. A CR 1/4 goblin has an AC of 15. Enjoy landing less than 50% of your attacks, I'll be over here "optimizing" my character to be capable of fighting basic enemies.

[PhoenixPhyre]

. Not as mathematically effective as "+5% chance to not waste your turn", but it's cool!

An experience I had yesterday as a player in a game where my bard has horrible stats (11 or 12 across the board except cha at 16, level 6, with a half feat to to those at 1 and 4) gave me a new look at this concept. We were in a huge fight. Tried a couple debuffs (heat metal, then slow when the heat metal turned out not effective due to me being an idiot and casting it on the half red dragon dude who was immune). Slow stuck on 2, then went away when concentration was broken. So I turned to blasting with shatter (because it was too close quarters for fireball). Turns out even save for half is better than save for none.

So even at low dc you can do stuff (as a caster) that isn't totally useless. You just have to buck the control meta and go ham on folks.

Not claiming you think otherwise, just bouncing off that quote.

[Dr.Samurai]

The core game math never assumes you hit 20 in any stat. It's totally fine with you ending at 18, and that only in mid T3.

Now the players and the common play style of pushing for Deadly xN encounters? Yeah, that doesn't work so well with that. But that's not the game's fault and unless you just didn't get any benefit from higher stats it won't ever change.
Hey PhoenixPhyre, can you remind me on your thoughts about encounter difficulty levels... was it CR=Half of party level? Is that in the books? Curious how I should be judging various abilities and features.


3.5 had a way higher ceiling than 5e, and a lot of us here knew it. CoDzilla, Dweomerkeeper, Incantatrix, Planar Shepherd, Omnificer, Wish and the Word, Pun-Pun etc. And a DM who is really trying can challenge even those.
No DM can challenge Pun-Pun :smallcool:.

[AvatarVecna]

An experience I had yesterday as a player in a game where my bard has horrible stats (11 or 12 across the board except cha at 16, level 6, with a half feat to to those at 1 and 4) gave me a new look at this concept. We were in a huge fight. Tried a couple debuffs (heat metal, then slow when the heat metal turned out not effective due to me being an idiot and casting it on the half red dragon dude who was immune). Slow stuck on 2, then went away when concentration was broken. So I turned to blasting with shatter (because it was too close quarters for fireball). Turns out even save for half is better than save for none.

So even at low dc you can do stuff (as a caster) that isn't totally useless. You just have to buck the control meta and go ham on folks.

Not claiming you think otherwise, just bouncing off that quote.

You know that's fair, "save for half" isn't as bad as "attack to see if you wasted your turn" or "save to make nothing happen". I still stick by it for the most part, but yeah it's not quite as absolute.

EDIT: And as counter, "save every turn to throw it off" supports the point even more, so yeah blasting is better for lower stats than control overall, I think.

[Witty Username]

So even at low dc you can do stuff (as a caster) that isn't totally useless. You just have to buck the control meta and go ham on folks.

Not claiming you think otherwise, just bouncing off that quote.

I tend to go the route of stuff that doesn't use saves, or saves are secondary to the effect. Sure fog cloud, grease and sleet storm don't make you feel all that powerful, but they cause alot of havoc.

Plant growth is just a straight broken spell.
--
14 is not a low score, it is the phb expectied (sure it doesn't work for monks, but that is another thing). Low scores are like a 5 (best strength score). Which are good for gameplay, roll your non-essential scores, it makes characters have much more interesting strengths and weaknesses.

[Cheesegear]

I don't disagree that it's a mutual arms race. But some tables start quite a bit down that spiral

The Internet, doesn't help.
How do I play [x]?
Well first of all, you should pick Custom Humanoid. This will give you Darkvision and a Feat. Don't play any MAD class...

The player shows up with an optimised character, despite having played before. Cool. I kind of wanted to ease you into this with a fairly easy session or three...But I guess we're not doing that, and you're throwing yourself into the deep end.


And yes, the issue with the optimization arms race is that it requires everyone to participate or else Bad Things Happen.

But it's not even optimisation; Not really. On some level it's just reading comprehension.

Passive Perception helps you counter Hidden. Hidden means you are Surprised. Surprised means you just get dunked on. Ergo; Perception means you don't get dunked.
...
...Why haven't you got a character proficient in Perception? There are so many ways to get it. Failing that, why didn't you start at Level 1 with Alert? What are you even doing. Perception is love. Perception is life.

...Don't even get me started on group checks; Wouldn't it be great if half the party weren't passively sabotaging our ability to do things?


Alternatively, I would actually counter with "What's wrong with Bad Things happening? It's a fictional game about make-believe. None of this is real." but that's a whole 'nother thread about power fantasies and Funhaving.

[Goobahfish]

I feel like capping Ability Scores at 20 has simply made it so that, "if you're not close to/at 20 in your primary stats, you're not good" is too much of a rule, so to speak.

Chasing Ability Scores that had no cap as high as you could get them was problematic in it's own way, admittedly, but wouldn't it be nice if having 14s in everything felt fine?

So, I think that in general for a lot of the game, you can get away with low stats. Where is this true.

Skill checks. +5... +3 not much difference.
Saves... +5... +3... not much difference (unless you are trying to get... 20-ish, which you shouldn't be)

So I think in the bound-accuracy space, this is true.

However, there are a few egregious examples where it is clearly not true.
#1: Weapon damage
#2: HP

In the case of weapon damage... D8+5 vs D8+1 is a BIG difference in output. 9.5 vs 5.5 is not a trivial difference.
In the case of HP D6+4/level is actually equivalent to D10+2/level.

Basically, that is why tanking CON is about the only 'non-dumpable stat' in the game. I have done it (CON = 8). It was... challenging.

However, I don't think that is a Stats problem, I think that is a HP problem... cue the other thread.

[Cheesegear]

Skill checks. +5... +3 not much difference.
Saves... +5... +3... not much difference (unless you are trying to get... 20-ish, which you shouldn't be)

So I think in the bound-accuracy space, this is true.

I think another poster was on the right track. Each +1 represents +5%.
+1 (5%), is not a big deal.

But +10% or +15% (in the case of the difference between having a 14 and a 20), is a very big deal. You might even say it's...Significant.

Once your table has started the arms race, it's very difficult to stop. If your DM sees that you have a +15% chance to kill a hostile in one hit, by Level 4, they're gonna have to escalate. But you don't even need that +15% to hit, and you certainly don't need to be able to kill a hostile in one hit...But you've got it. So now what?


However, there are a few egregious examples where it is clearly not true.
#1: Weapon damage
#2: HP

Because these dice are not d20s, they are a lot smaller, meaning that each fixed increment represents more than a +5% increase in results (i.e; It's significant).

+1 damage on a Dagger, is 25% more effective than not having it. If you're going to be using Daggers (for whatever reason), pump that DEX through the roof!


Basically, that is why tanking CON is about the only 'non-dumpable stat' in the game. I have done it (CON = 8). It was... challenging.

I don't make any character with a DEX (Initiative), CON (HP) or WIS (Perception), less than 10.

[Sherlockpwns]

Most of us don't play to pretend to be incompetent nincompoops for hours and hours and hours.

Am I the only one out here having fun being stupid for hours and hours?! Our table uses rolled stats. My current character has a FIVE charisma. My last character had a SIX INT.

They are both memorable morons in their own bungling way.

I also had a character who rolled all 13s (after modifiers) a few years ago.

To me the fun is building a working character with the tools you are given. Not just for combat, but for RP.

6 INT was based on Zapp Brannigan and was the party leader constantly making terrible choices. He eventually opened his own tavern. It burned down.

5 cha is rude to everyone, npcs, his own party, and has a rich and detailed backstory as to why. Still early days (lvl 5) but I am excited to slowly reveal why he is such a jerk.

Super average man was a really weird character to play. While the first two didn’t need INT or cha for combat, being average means you gotta find a way around it. I landed on making a character that just didn’t need stats for fighting at all. A variety of spells are no-save effects. I just ran with those. You may think that is pretty limiting, but I see it as no more so than most combat actions which are (more often than not) I walk up the enemy and attack. Or I cast fireball, etc. from my memory I recall a lot of AoA, cloud of daggers, magic missile, haste, greater invis, etc. you would be amazed at what a level 3 fog cloud can do. It is effing huge.

I think a char with 14s doesn’t even need to do that since 13s are significantly worse. Will you be the guy taking sharpshooter xbow? No. But I bet you can build a funky multiclass with it that will be far more memorable than “man with hwf and pam”

[Zhorn]

I've no issue with players desiring higher stats and investing into them.
But the fixation of getting stats as high as possible in the starting levels along with the general power creep coming with each subsequent release... Not a fan.

I'm in favour of having reliably lower scores in the starting levels.
Gives character more room to grow as they level up, more reasons to chase treasures and quests that grant power.
I'm always more willing to give players quests and story hooks that grant power ups if they are starting from a low base.
Plus starting with lower scores help those lower CR enemies maintain relevance for much longer into the campaign.
Just my 2cp

[Schwann145]

Yeah, a lot of people in this thread seem to be ignoring actual maths. A CR 1/4 goblin has an AC of 15. Enjoy landing less than 50% of your attacks, I'll be over here "optimizing" my character to be capable of fighting basic enemies.
You're making, "you hit on an 11 instead of a 9" sound way worse than it actually is.
Also, you're gonna need a few thousand more rolls, minimum, before you start seeing your rolls average to the median. :smallwink:


Am I the only one out here having fun being stupid for hours and hours?!
You're not alone! Some of the most memorable roleplaying I've experienced has had to do with awful things happening to characters!
The only way to "win" D&D is to be having fun; rolling high is certainly not the only way to do that! :smallwink:

[Mastikator]

It's fine to have low scores. But having low primary score while everyone else has high primary score is not fun. You become an ineffective spectator, well except for the fact that you can still die.

Edit- and before anyone says "just try it you might enjoy it", I've tried it, played an entire campaign with a weak, ineffective, character. No, it wasn't fun. Not in the beginning, not in the middle, not in the end. And no, the campaign wasn't the problem, the DM wasn't the problem. My first character in that campaign was powerful, AKA had agency.

That's the crux with having a weak character, agency. A weak character doesn't have agency. No agency means no roleplaying, not beyond making a funny voice and talking about his backstory, which may have been a redeeming quality for the character I played, it wasn't redeeming enough.

[Amnestic]

Chasing Ability Scores that had no cap as high as you could get them was problematic in it's own way, admittedly, but wouldn't it be nice if having 14s in everything felt fine?

You can just try this. Next campaign just tell your players that scores are capped at 14, no ifs, ands, or buts. Their ASIs can either go into feats or tertiary stats.

Assuming a standard +2/+1 race, your players will probably start with a 14/14/14/14/12/8 spread on point buy.

Can't say I'd be very enthusiastic to play a monk (14 AC forever! Worse than a wizard with mage armour!). And I guess splint/plate mail is off the table unless I'm a dwarf. Medium armour is much tastier compared to light (as if it wasn't already...) since it's already scaled at max from the start.

But you'll have a lot of feats to toss around, I suppose. Lots of squishes suddenly getting medium armour proficiency I expect.

[Zhorn]

It's fine to have low scores. But having low primary score while everyone else has high primary score is not fun. You become an ineffective spectator, well except for the fact that you can still die.
Fair point, vast power discrepancies in the party can indeed be frustrating and anti fun.
But just to treat the topic fairly for the viewers at home we should be sure not to conflate
"having lower scores compared to others in the party" as the same stance of "having lower scores (especially at lower levels) can still be a fun gaming experience"

Each poster will have their own reasons for it; but my general stance aligns with the underlying point Sigreid brings up in post #5 (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25727452&postcount=5), Big numbers on th e player's end just prompts the DM in inflate numbers on the Monster's end. If the end of the day result if you are still needing a 10 or more on your d20 roll to hit, and it takes 4 hits to down the enemy, then the bigger scores serve no purpose beyond being a bigger number, and monsters that have lower numbers, or have just not been homebrewed to match the raised power baseline, are less relevant to the campaign.

For me, when I talk about having lower scores, I'm talking for the party as a whole, not some in the party while others have high scores. Because I agree with you; it sucks if you are way behind your team mates and don't have an area you can contribute on (this needn't be a numbers thing, but that's a needless tangent right now).

[da newt]

There is no one 'right' way to enjoy the game, but it is average human nature to want to be (or at least feel) as effective as you can, so most folks tend towards the optimization side of the spectrum especially if they play with another Player who pushes to take advantage of every mechanical ability available.

The folks who enjoy being average (or even below average) in a party of exceptional folks (their in game peers) tend to be quite rare, but they do exist.

I play a bunch of AL which tends to bring out the worst power gaming in people, but there are a handful of folks who happily continue to play very vanilla PCs and may even forget to learn what all of their abilities are as they level up, what magic items they have earned or even when they get ASIs.

In one top end of tier 3 game I've got a party w/ 3 optimizers (who burn downtime days to jump up in level and comb the books for every ability or weird AL rule/benefit), 3 very basic vanilla PCs, and one ranger who doesn't use spells and has an 8 CON (I shoot my bow twice and ride my pet). I've had to crank up the difficulty of the written modules to 11 to challenge them at all, and they all seem to be enjoying things.

As for me personally, I like to play effective PCs, but not chase every single iota of power. Give me a good 80th percentile guy, and I'm in my happy place. Chasing that last 20% takes away from my fun of RP, character development, and puns.

To each their own.

[Psyren]

In 2e 14s across the board would have been a pretty decent statline, numerical impact from stats was minor barring exceptional rolls.

I'll take your word for it on this, I'm not familiar enough with 2e to concur or refute.


I agree, but people that maybe haven't played games where you choose your power level sometimes have the mindset of being "as powerful as possible"

That mindset is only a problem if "as powerful as possible" breaks the game. Some games curtail that ceiling completely, like 4e and PF2, and in others like 5e its theoretically possible but usually the DM has levers to easily prevent that, like being able to control exactly what you get from a Conjure X spell.

There are also games like 3.5e where too much of that control is put in the hands of the players, of course.

[Zuras]

I agree that it’s quite possible to play an effective PC with mediocre stats in 5e, but it definitely requires some system mastery and situational awareness, because 5e is far more reliant on stats than pre-3e versions of D&D.

In particular, the idea that a one point modifier difference translates to only a 5% difference in effectiveness is simply wrong. The difference between a a 14 and a 16 at low levels is +4 vs +5 to hit, which is a 10% difference against AC 15 foes (hitting 50% of the time vs 55%). The gap is smaller against poorly armored opponents but still more than 5%. Conversely, the durability difference between an AC 14 monk and an AC 16 one is significantly more than 10%.

Without some lateral thinking, poor stats lead directly to ineffective characters. I have seen this time and again with new players who try to play a MAD class and mis-allocate their stats. Lots of bad monks and valor bards, plus plenty of melee wizards, sorcerers and clerics that had to burn excessive resources in combat to match the player’s concept. The most depressing of these is the cleric who keeps being the first PC knocked unconscious in combat (due to under-investing in CON and DEX leading to AoE damage) and thus never getting to heal anyone.

So, paradoxically, it’s quite possible to build and play an un-optimized character with mediocre stats in 5e, but to do so effectively you need to know how and why to optimize a character in the first place (and avoid focusing on areas that require stat optimization for effectiveness).

[Rukelnikov]

Am I the only one out here having fun being stupid for hours and hours?! Our table uses rolled stats. My current character has a FIVE charisma. My last character had a SIX INT.

snip

I enjoy playing those characters too, they fuel creativity for me.


It's fine to have low scores. But having low primary score while everyone else has high primary score is not fun. You become an ineffective spectator, well except for the fact that you can still die.

That's the thing though, you don't become ineffective, you need to find a way to become effective that is less reliant on your stats.


I'll take your word for it on this, I'm not familiar enough with 2e to concur or refute.

For instance Str 16 only gives +0 attack/+1 damage, so the direct combat effectiveness of having str 10 or 16 is pretty minor. Standard array in 2e would net a total combat upgrade over 10s across the board of 1 better AC if you put the 15 in Dex or +1 HP/lvl if you put the 15 in Con, that's it.

OTOH, "skill checks" in 2e are handled by rolling below your stats, with modifiers sometimes. This means in a way, you have "+4 to all skill checks".


That mindset is only a problem if "as powerful as possible" breaks the game. Some games curtail that ceiling completely, like 4e and PF2, and in others like 5e its theoretically possible but usually the DM has levers to easily prevent that, like being able to control exactly what you get from a Conjure X spell.

There are also games like 3.5e where too much of that control is put in the hands of the players, of course.

I think its a problem in general, because instead of thinking how can I make this character more interesting people think how can I make this character more powerful, without stopping to think if the character needs to be more powerful in the first place.

[Psyren]

I think its a problem in general, because instead of thinking how can I make this character more interesting people think how can I make this character more powerful, without stopping to think if the character needs to be more powerful in the first place.

I don't believe one necessarily precludes the other, that's just Stormwind thinking. More power has a ceiling in most groups, and that ceiling is when one person's pursuit of power stops being fun for everyone else. (That doesn't always work perfectly, hence the playgroup horror stories we sometimes get here, but the majority arrive at that equilibrium just fine.)

[Ionathus]

Occasionally, your modifier dictates how many times you can use a major feature like Bardic Inspiration; in these cases, having a low stat makes the game less interesting.

This is my biggest complaint about low numbers. Too many features are now keyed off "[your class's primary ability modifier] per long rest" as a mechanic.

[Rukelnikov]

I don't believe one necessarily precludes the other, that's just Stormwind thinking.

You may be right.


More power has a ceiling in most groups, and that ceiling is when one person's pursuit of power stops being fun for everyone else. (That doesn't always work perfectly, hence the playgroup horror stories we sometimes get here, but the majority arrive at that equilibrium just fine.)

Yeah, most groups reach a "comfort" level of play, otherwise they wouldn't be groups for long, but the arms race mentality affects other players too, DM escalates, 1 player escalates, now some other player may start feeling like they need to escalate too, not out of desire but of necessity.

I get the impression that people that plays/ed WoD, maybe M&M or other systems where PCs power vary wildly don't worry as much if someone else in the party or the DM escalates, the "pressure" to escalate themselves seems much lower.

[KorvinStarmast]

Occasionally, your modifier dictates how many times you can use a major feature like Bardic Inspiration; in these cases, having a low stat makes the game less interesting. And I think that PB/LR is a place that WotC is tinkering with that.
Anybody who had fun playing a PC with 14s in their primary stats wasn’t playing a monk. True.

I'll take your word for it on this, I'm not familiar enough with 2e to concur or refute. IME, true. If you ended up doing a lot of 'roll below to succeed' checks, the 14's across the board was handy in a variety of skill-check types of situations.
Man, that was a long time ago.

[Kurt Kurageous]

I've often thought about playing or running a game in the style/mindset of the movie "The Other Guys."

Stat mod is limited to +2 postracial at 1st level.

The tone of the game would be low magic, finesse of RP as well as versus monsters would be important, and magic items would be really really valuable.

I'd be open to developing other parameters for the world to help make it more interesting to play in.

[Skrum]

I've often thought about playing or running a game in the style/mindset of the movie "The Other Guys."

Stat mod is limited to +2 postracial at 1st level.

The tone of the game would be low magic, finesse of RP as well as versus monsters would be important, and magic items would be really really valuable.

I'd be open to developing other parameters for the world to help make it more interesting to play in.

I ran a game that wasn't quite like this, but I think had some of the same features.

The players started in a The Hive-type dungeon, and just like happened to the real Hive, the facility fell to pieces and was overrun by zombies. They were level 3 with no equipment or gear at all. The zombies were reduced HP, reduced speed mummies, so *incredibly dangerous* to trade even a single blow with. They had to finesse their way through the complex, avoiding zombies, etc etc etc. It was very Resident Evil.

But anyway, the part that reminded me of your concept is the starting with no gear. Like really none; the spellcasters were scrounging to find particular components to cast spells. My sense is that the players enjoyed this kind of gritty "you're not superheroes" game *because* they did eventually find gear and got to use some cool items they found in the Weapons Lab. Being weak and ineffectual was a neat thing partially because they knew if they pushed on they might find some really useful stuff. Said another way, it probably would've become a chore if they remained weak the entire game.

[Goobahfish]

I don't make any character with a DEX (Initiative), CON (HP) or WIS (Perception), less than 10.

Yeah... the game really pushes that. I try to avoid doing that but I always feel like I am kneecapping myself in doing so. It saddens me that dump-stating Int is viable... but being clumsy or weak willed... are you crazy?

[Dork_Forge]

No you don't need really high scores by default and having an array of middling scores can make you a useful jack of all trades to support specialists.

However, I think there are some important caveats here:

- this depends on the table to some degree, if you play a table that likes harder encounters then you can end up in trouble, and on some level may be breaking the unspoken social contract of your table.

- Stats are not just 5% per +1 increase, what character you play can have significant impact on your stats. A Bard thst has a 14 Cha, and chooses to leave it there, isn't just going to fail more with their spells, heal less with certain spells etc. They're also going to have less uses of Bardic Inspiration. A Psi Warrior with a low-middling Int is just going to get less value out of a lot of their abilities. So it really is a case by case basis.

- There's a difference between middling (14 across the board) and actually having low stats, like your array might have one 14 as the highest number after racials. If you do actually have low stats across the board, that character can still muddle through, but that character will struggle and sometimes become a burden/not fun.

But generally I support that you don't need to be cranking your stats to +5 at the earliest opportunity to have fun and be effective.

[Ogre Mage]

Well, I am a shameless power gamer as I insist on having at least a 16 in my main attribute. And I insist on having at least Constitution 12, Dexterity 10 and Wisdom 10. I don't care what anyone says.

[Rukelnikov]

Well, I am a shameless power gamer as I insist on having at least a 16 in my main attribute. And I insist on having at least Constitution 12, Dexterity 10 and Wisdom 10. I don't care what anyone says.

Speaking current style of stats (3e and forward), I don't remember ever having a character with less than 12 Con, and usually its 14.

[Pex]

Am I the only one out here having fun being stupid for hours and hours?! Our table uses rolled stats. My current character has a FIVE charisma. My last character had a SIX INT.

They are both memorable morons in their own bungling way.

I also had a character who rolled all 13s (after modifiers) a few years ago.

To me the fun is building a working character with the tools you are given. Not just for combat, but for RP.

6 INT was based on Zapp Brannigan and was the party leader constantly making terrible choices. He eventually opened his own tavern. It burned down.

5 cha is rude to everyone, npcs, his own party, and has a rich and detailed backstory as to why. Still early days (lvl 5) but I am excited to slowly reveal why he is such a jerk.

Super average man was a really weird character to play. While the first two didn’t need INT or cha for combat, being average means you gotta find a way around it. I landed on making a character that just didn’t need stats for fighting at all. A variety of spells are no-save effects. I just ran with those. You may think that is pretty limiting, but I see it as no more so than most combat actions which are (more often than not) I walk up the enemy and attack. Or I cast fireball, etc. from my memory I recall a lot of AoA, cloud of daggers, magic missile, haste, greater invis, etc. you would be amazed at what a level 3 fog cloud can do. It is effing huge.

I think a char with 14s doesn’t even need to do that since 13s are significantly worse. Will you be the guy taking sharpshooter xbow? No. But I bet you can build a funky multiclass with it that will be far more memorable than “man with hwf and pam”

Having high stats doesn't make it impossible for someone to roleplay either.

It's okay to have low scores as much as it's okay to have high scores. However, the math of the game does matter. As the levels progress the bad guys have a higher score in their prime and increase their proficiency bonus. Never raising your prime above 14 will significantly hurt you in effectiveness and your party for your incompetence. As much as DM may be frustrated having to arms race the optimized party, he can be just as frustrated having to use guardrails and not have the fun using particular monsters because they will TPK a game mechanical incompetent for the level party.

You don't need to justify or apologize having a 14 in your prime at 5th level as long as you don't demand the same of me for having an 18.


This is my biggest complaint about low numbers. Too many features are now keyed off "[your class's primary ability modifier] per long rest" as a mechanic.

They tried keying off features with proficiency bonus, but then they get complaints it makes multiclassing more powerful. Both methods have their pros and cons.

[Dork_Forge]

They tried keying off features with proficiency bonus, but then they get complaints it makes multiclassing more powerful. Both methods have their pros and cons.

What annoys me about this is that they can just write it out and not say 'your prof bonus.' Like, if the numbers work, just use the numbers. You don't have to tie it to overall character progression.

[stoutstien]

What annoys me about this is that they can just write it out and not say 'your prof bonus.' Like, if the numbers work, just use the numbers. You don't have to tie it to overall character progression.

Yea. I'm all for keeping complexity down but I really don't understand the need to double back like this using stats or Prof bonus.

[OvisCaedo]

It's okay to have low scores, but I don't think it's really any more interesting in practice. 5e's preferred score generation methods don't generally let you get scores low enough to be a serious flaw to play around, though pure random rolling or GM houserules could allow it. For the majority of purposes, having lower ability scores just... makes you a bit less likely to succeed, on almost everything you do.

Any ways it changes how you might play are still just using options that higher stat characters are already fully capable of doing too. I guess being less effective in conventional ways could make people feel obligated to try to come up with alternative actions that they could have done either way?

And on the flip side, while ability scores are largely kind of dull in what having them high or low means, they're also one of the only reliable numerical bonuses for things in 5e that a player/character can influence to try to buck the whims of the d20.

[Ionathus]

What annoys me about this is that they can just write it out and not say 'your prof bonus.' Like, if the numbers work, just use the numbers. You don't have to tie it to overall character progression.

You mean, something like this? I think it would keep the explanation fairly streamlined while mitigating multiclass cheese:


You get 2 uses of this ability per long rest. You gain an additional use when you reach level 5, level 9, level 13, and level 17 in [Class]

I do love the elegance of tying it to your primary class modifier, because it's one of the numbers that most new players notice as they start to actually examine the math, and then they don't have to remember another number because it's that same number! But that design choice definitely adds an incentive to go full SAD at the expense of any interesting feats or tertiary ability scores.

In my next campaign that starts from 1, I'm eager to try the homebrew where everyone gets both a feat AND an ASI every time they qualify for one - but with the caveat that no score can go up by more than 1. It flattens out the race to 20, keeping combat interesting, but it also forces you to take fun niche feats and buff your secondary or tertiary abilities.

[Dork_Forge]

You mean, something like this? I think it would keep the explanation fairly streamlined while mitigating multiclass cheese:



I do love the elegance of tying it to your primary class modifier, because it's one of the numbers that most new players notice as they start to actually examine the math, and then they don't have to remember another number because it's that same number! But that design choice definitely adds an incentive to go full SAD at the expense of any interesting feats or tertiary ability scores.

In my next campaign that starts from 1, I'm eager to try the homebrew where everyone gets both a feat AND an ASI every time they qualify for one - but with the caveat that no score can go up by more than 1. It flattens out the race to 20, keeping combat interesting, but it also forces you to take fun niche feats and buff your secondary or tertiary abilities.

That's exactly what I meant, just saying prof bonus is, imo, a lazy way of writing whilst thumbing their nose at any concept of multiclass balance.

Personally, I like using either short rest or stat mod for number of uses. I've started giving a feat at character creation and awarding feats as rewards instead of level ups sometimes, I've had pretty good feedback with it.

[Ionathus]

Any ways it changes how you might play are still just using options that higher stat characters are already fully capable of doing too. I guess being less effective in conventional ways could make people feel obligated to try to come up with alternative actions that they could have done either way?

Necessity is the mother of invention. If PCs have high scores and big combat modifiers, they'll often take the path of least resistance. There's less pressure to innovate if what you're already doing is working, after all, and my players even sometimes acknowledge the opportunity cost of doing some wacky bull**** instead of making their three attacks at +11 - the wacky stuff is more interesting RP-wise, but if it fails then all you're thinking about is the damage you could have done with your normal boring attacks.

That's not every table's mindset and it's not even mine either most of the time. I just see where people are coming from when they say that low numbers can make the game more interesting, because your "normal" options aren't so optimal that they're the only logical choice.


And on the flip side, while ability scores are largely kind of dull in what having them high or low means, they're also one of the only reliable numerical bonuses for things in 5e that a player/character can influence to try to buck the whims of the d20.

Only barely. One of my big complaints of the 5e stats & skills system is that in a typical campaign, you can pick a niche skill proficiency - animal handling, for instance - and never roll it enough times for your proficiency to mean anything. If the DM's not actively introducing opportunities to use it, you're not gonna roll enough times for a +4 to feel like it makes any difference. Because a d20 check isn't weighted towards the middle numbers (unlike 2d6 being weighted towards 7, for example), you're at the mercy of the dice a lot more.

I try to incorporate other uses for proficiency when I DM, like only allowing you to attempt something if you're proficient or giving you bonus info/loot automatically if you have a certain proficiency. I know that's not groundbreaking DM advice or anything, but it's unfortunate that these nuances aren't pushed harder at new DMs. Skill and ability checks done well really liven up the play experience.

[strangebloke]

depends on the class tbh.

Barbarians just have big numbers with or without good stats. You roll with advantage for everything, you only need a 14 in DEX to get good AC, and you have lots of HP regardless.

Bards need CHA to get more BI uses. Monks infamously are VERY stat dependent.

[Mastikator]

depends on the class tbh.

Barbarians just have big numbers with or without good stats. You roll with advantage for everything, you only need a 14 in DEX to get good AC, and you have lots of HP regardless.

Bards need CHA to get more BI uses. Monks infamously are VERY stat dependent.

Is 14 dex low?

[strangebloke]

Is 14 dex low?

14 in a secondary stat is a pretty low price to pay for 16-17 AC before shields, yeah.

like fighters and paladins have it better, arguably, since they get AC from their main stat, and clerics arguably have it better too because they can hold a shield at no real cost, but most classes (bards, warlocks, wizards, sorcerers, druids) have to invest more to get that kind of AC.

[Mastikator]

14 in a secondary stat is a pretty low price to pay for 16-17 AC before shields, yeah.

like fighters and paladins have it better, arguably, since they get AC from their main stat, and clerics arguably have it better too because they can hold a shield at no real cost, but most classes (bards, warlocks, wizards, sorcerers, druids) have to invest more to get that kind of AC.

If everyone has low stats, then the DM can just adjust encounters from deadly/hard to hard/medium.

Actually doing that would mean that heavy armor is sufficiently better than medium. Maybe we should all be playing with point buy but with like 21 points to spend.

[Cheesegear]

I would be interested to know the crossover between:

A middling score (14) is fine, actually.
and
I need floating ASIs because Half-Orc Wizards are suboptimal compared to Elven ones. Therefore, Half-Orc Wizards are unplayable.

[Pex]

I would be interested to know the crossover between:

A middling score (14) is fine, actually.
and
I need floating ASIs because Half-Orc Wizards are suboptimal compared to Elven ones. Therefore, Half-Orc Wizards are unplayable.

I get your point and reference, but the people who say a 14 is fine are not the ones who say they need floating ASI because otherwise half-orc wizards are unplayable. The latter are getting and wanting the 16/18 in their prime no matter what. The crossover is exclusive either/or. Those who are ok with 14 will play a pre-Tasha half-orc wizard just fine.

[Cheesegear]

The crossover is exclusive either/or. Those who are ok with 14 will play a pre-Tasha half-orc wizard just fine.

Partial disagree. I guess I'm sort of chasing...

Yeah, I know that I only really need a 14...But...Pfft...I'm not doing that - that's lame. Tasha's lets my Half-Orc Artificer have 16 Int, so I'm taking it.

[Captain Cap]

Maybe we should all be playing with point buy but with like 21 points to spend.
And so the monks were no more :smallbiggrin:

[strangebloke]

If everyone has low stats, then the DM can just adjust encounters from deadly/hard to hard/medium.

Actually doing that would mean that heavy armor is sufficiently better than medium. Maybe we should all be playing with point buy but with like 21 points to spend.

Yeahhhh its a bit weird though because you tend to end up with really minmaxed characters that have 8s across the board and a 12 in CON and a 16 in DEX or something. Its not bad per se, but it really limits what you can work with. Monks are awful. Wizards and druids are heavily pushed to get by with middling mentals and spells that don't key off casting stat (summons and buffs).

Dwarf clerics become obscenely good. Hexblades are crazy.

Its interesting but not something I'd like to do as the standard. I like to give people huge fat point buy and let them go nuts.

[Witty Username]

Partial disagree. I guess I'm sort of chasing...

Yeah, I know that I only really need a 14...But...Pfft...I'm not doing that - that's lame. Tasha's lets my Half-Orc Artificer have 16 Int, so I'm taking it.

Well,
14 vs 16 with 14 being acceptable or 16 being nessasary will vary by table and special build.
As examples, a wizard is fine with a 14 int until the day the campaign ends, with some caviots on spell selection while a monk with highest stat 14 is borderline unplayable.

Also, if 16 is acceptable at all, is it a fair point of balance for races, how many tiefling barbarians have you seen for example in comparison to half-orc ones?

Somewhat conjecture, I allow floating ASIs, but I haven't found they change player behavior much. And I have personally used them to guarantee 14s (we use rolled stats). I can see how the conclusion could be reached. And this will matter more for optimized tables.

[Cheesegear]

Somewhat conjecture, I allow floating ASIs, but I haven't found they change player behavior much.

As a "Forever DM", I find that the vast majority of PCs that I ever get to play, don't really matter1. I typically randomly generate my PCs and the fixed racial ASIs barely affect anything, so long as my main stats are 14. Speaking as a Forever DM, I feel like I should be able to make anything work, so the random Background, Race and Class2 often rolls up some things I would never, ever, ever have been able to come up with on my own.

1I'm aware that some players treat D&D as serious business...3

2I'm not brave enough to random roll Subclass. But I find that usually my Racial ASIs and/or Background will point me in a good direction that works. Between Xanathar's and Tasha's you should be able to make any combo work.

3Maybe the problematic behaviour is taking D&D seriously?

[Xervous]

3Maybe the problematic behaviour is taking D&D seriously?

Just because you take the game seriously doesn't necessarily mean you're valuing the right metrics or expecting the results the system is designed to give. A person's dedication and investment doesn't make a carrot peeler's inability to cut steak a flaw of the carrot peeler. Of course 5e is a lump found on the side of the road with only a semblance of guidance on what it's supposed to do, most of it cultural based on familiar things it resembles.

[da newt]

I think taking it too seriously can be an issue - it can also be no problem at all. It all depends on the individuals involved.

I believe for many folks they'd enjoy the game more if they weren't conflicted with the competitive desire to do more/better than the other PCs (or at least do just as well). If more folks approached the game as a team, being more generous with setting up your peers to excel or have the spot light for a bit, there would be less angst. But we humans are pretty crap at that by and large.

Most folks want to be as good as they can be (unless that required real work / dedication - I mean how many of us can keep to a strict diet and workout regime vs how many of us want to look great at the beach?).

Personally, I enjoy playing the scrappy underdog more than playing Superman, but I also like to have a decent CON and WIS for HP and Saves and start w/ a 16 in my primary Stat so I guess I'm a bit of a hypocrite ...

[KorvinStarmast]

Well, I am a shameless power gamer as I insist on having at least a 16 in my main attribute. And I insist on having at least Constitution 12, Dexterity 10 and Wisdom 10. I don't care what anyone says. That's not power gaming. :smallcool:

3Maybe the problematic behaviour is taking D&D seriously?[/I] Yes. Moreso is the "it's all about me" approach to the game where the fundamental unit is the party ...

I believe for many folks they'd enjoy the game more if they weren't conflicted with the competitive desire to do more/better than the other PCs (or at least do just as well). If more folks approached the game as a team, being more generous with setting up your peers to excel or have the spot light for a bit, there would be less angst. Yes.

[Tanarii]

The problem isn't that you're capped at 20 - the problem is that another +1 to your best stat mod is one of, if not far and away, the single most important thing your character can do.
Except it isn't. Every class has Con as a secondary, and despite being secondary it's often more important than the primary. I can't count the number of times I've seen players neglect Con in favor or their primary and suffer. And plenty of classes have a secondary that is extremely useful to raise to e.g. 16 before thinking about a 18 in their primary.

And of course if feats are allowed the raise primary is the most important thing you can do logic goes right off the table.

But what the game doesn't really do is encourage you to emphasize tertiary ability scores. A PB non-variant human with 5 14s and a 11 isn't generally considered a balanced character, ignoring the opportunity cost of race for a sec. Even though they're probably 10-15% better than folks at ability checks. Ability checks just aren't that important the way most games are run, and that's even more true if your DM likes to let the best bonus roll for the party a lot.

[Amnestic]

The thing about ability checks is that - while not universally the case - often they only need to be covered by one party member. You only need one 'face', one 'bookworm', one 'strong pushguy', etc. so while there will certainly be times when you will be called upon to make an ability check that isn't your area of expertise, it's few and further between, so when the opportunity cost is either a +1 bonus to the thing you're doing 90% of the time vs. a +2 buff to a thing you do 1% of the time, chances are you'll aim for that primary instead. Especially since chances are that +1 probably leans into your 'niche' in the party anyway.

[strangebloke]

Can we not relitigate tasha's race discourse again? Seriously guys its been THREE YEARS.

[Rukelnikov]

Can we not relitigate tasha's race discourse again? Seriously guys its been THREE YEARS.

Should we stop complaining about mistakes in the game just because they have been in the game for long?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Should we stop complaining about mistakes in the game just because they have been in the game for long?

Yeah. I'll complain about forcecage and other PHB idiocies even though it's been a decade.

[Rukelnikov]

Yeah. I'll complain about forcecage and other PHB idiocies even though it's been a decade.

And you are correct in complaining about it if you don't like it, I also think its OP, same effect as a lvl 9 spell would probably still see play.

[strangebloke]

Should we stop complaining about mistakes in the game just because they have been in the game for long?

People find a way to insert it into EVERY THREAD.

[Rukelnikov]

People find a way to insert it into EVERY THREAD.

And that's becuase character creation is one of the core aspects of the game, and that rule changed character creation, so it will directly or indirectly pop up in a lot of threads.

[PhoenixPhyre]

People find a way to insert it into EVERY THREAD.

Now do "casters are better than martials".

[strangebloke]

And that's becuase character creation is one of the core aspects of the game, and that rule changed character creation, so it will directly or indirectly pop up in a lot of threads.
its a subset of races you can choose at character creation, its not that big a deal.

Now do "casters are better than martials".
Eh, fair, I guess I'm just used to that one since its been going since 3e at least.

[Rukelnikov]

its a subset of races you can choose at character creation, its not that big a deal.

I thought we were talking about freely moving ability scores around, things like having a mountain dwarf with medium armor prof and 2 free +2s in whatever you want.

[NichG]

The issue is, if you have a number that doesn't matter, that feels bad, or at best its underwhelming when things let you vary that number or trade things off. Point buy to determine my character's hair, eye, and clothing colors where if I make the hair very saturated I have to have very grey clothes? You could do it, but it'd just be annoying.

But if you want to make the number matter, the problem is that then the number matters, so of course people will want the numbers to be good.

So IMO, just diluting the impact of the numbers is mediocre design. The better path is to make the numbers matter in ways that can't be quantitatively compared to each-other, and to avoid letting anything be SAD - ideally every attribute should matter to every class, and in ways players can adapt and customize their playstyle and build design to deal with rather than in ways determined by the DM or environment. So when the goals of a build vary, sometimes you'll get the 20/10/10/10/10/8 builds and sometimes you'll get the 14/14/14/14/14/14 builds. If you want to go even further, making attributes be 'A or B' rather than 'amount of A' means that you can even have builds where very low scores could in fact be good to play - this could be anything from saying 'your Strength = 20 - your Dexterity' sorts of restrictions, to 'however many point buy points you have left get converted into levels/loot/feats/fate points somehow' to having abilities or choices that have low scores as prerequisites, or even which directly benefit from low scores, to meta-game point budget systems where NPC point buy budgets scale with the party's total point buy budget to ...

These are possibilities, and many are only appropriate to specific genres or styles of play, so really its more here as examples of how one might think about attacking this design problem than specific solutions for D&D.

[Cheesegear]

If more folks approached the game as a team, being more generous with setting up your peers to excel or have the spot light for a bit, there would be less angst. But we humans are pretty crap at that by and large.

Strong agree.
But a big part of the problem is that a lot of players already have a character in mind before they've even seen the rest of the party.
I do want to play a Rogue, I don't want to play a Cleric.


I mean how many of us can keep to a strict diet and workout regime

Speaking from experience, the diet is actually easy as long as you don't live in a food desert. The workout regime is secondary.


That's not power gaming. :smallcool:

1. A need a 16 in my primary stat or my character is useless.
2. I mean, the option for having a 16 in my primary stat is available to me, at no- to low-cost. Since I can read, I know that that's pretty good. Having a 16 in your primary stat is pretty good, relatively free, and available to me. Why wouldn't I have a 16 in my primary stat?

As I said way earlier. Some people aren't "optimising" their character. Some players just know how to read.


Yes. Moreso is the "it's all about me" approach to the game where the fundamental unit is the party ...

"I don't trust the party to do what's best for me. So Paladins are automatically the best frontline fighters because they can heal themselves and don't need to rely on anyone."
...Why is relying on someone, a bad thing? You know this a cooperative game, right?


You only need one 'face'

Given that roleplaying encounters usually feature everyone in the party. Partial disagree. I almost always end up calling for group checks. Having one character with +9 in Deception with Advantage isn't helpful when everyone in the party is making the Deception.


one 'bookworm', one 'strong pushguy'

It depends how your DM allows Helping.


so when the opportunity cost is either a +1 bonus to the thing you're doing 90% of the time vs. a +2 buff to a thing you do 1% of the time, chances are you'll aim for that primary instead. Especially since chances are that +1 probably leans into your 'niche' in the party anyway.

I think you're giving a bad example.

My go-to example would be that if a DM sets something at DC 25, you can't pass it, unless you have a at least a +5.
Saying 'My character can cover anything' because you have +2s and +3s in ever Skill, doesn't hold water. Because you can't actually cover anything.

Alright team, this one's a pretty hard one. I'm probably only gonna need people who are Proficient to make the roll...
I'm Proficient! My Background gave my Proficiency.
Oh? That literally hasn't come up before now...Aren't you a Fighter?
Yeah, my bonus is +1, because INT is my dump stat. But I'm Proficient!
Okay...By "Proficient", I meant someone who's actually good at it. +1 is nothing. Nevermind.
Yeah, I've got a +5, and as long as [condition], I have Advantage.
That'll work.
...I never get to use my Background. :smallfrown:


Can we not relitigate tasha's race discourse again? Seriously guys its been THREE YEARS.

When it stops being a problem, is when it will go away.

[Psyren]

I would be interested to know the crossover between:

A middling score (14) is fine, actually.
and
I need floating ASIs because Half-Orc Wizards are suboptimal compared to Elven ones. Therefore, Half-Orc Wizards are unplayable.

Bold is where you went astray.



When it stops being a problem, is when it will go away.

*starts


Now do "casters are better than martials".

Ha! :smallbiggrin:

[sithlordnergal]

Personally, I'm of the opinion that 14 is perfectly fine, provided you're the one rolling the d20. Due to the numbers being much lower in 5e, the d20 can have a far larger impact on your success or failure. I find static DCs tend to be at a bit of a disadvantage because of this. For example, lets say you try to attack a creature with a 13 AC, and you only have a +2 to hit. You still have a 50% chance of success, despite only having a +2. And outside of a few exceptions, like the Helmed Horror, most creatures only have a 13 to 16 AC at lower Tiers. Which means your chance to hit with a +4 fluctuates between 60% to 45%, depending on the AC.


The same principal holds true for Spell or Ability DCs, only the advantage is given to whoever is making the save. If you start with a 14 in your primary score, your DC is going to be 12 at levels 1 to 3, until you boost it at level 4. Given that most creatures at low levels have a +1 in their strongest stat, and a +0 in most of the others, with a floating -1 that could be anywhere, you're looking at a 50% to 45% chance of them succeeding on a given saving throw, unless you can target that -1 score. If you start with a 16, they only have a 45% to 40% chance of success. That 5% difference can count for a lot.

Now, you might say "why not just target that -1 ability score", to which I say "Easier said than done". Lets say you want to target Strength because that's where the -1 is, and you have up to 2nd level spells. You have 10 spells to choose from, two of which are Paladin Smite Spells that only go off when the Paladin successfully hits their target. How about targeting Charisma or Intelligence? Only three options in all of the spells from Cantrips to 2nd level.

Meanwhile 21 spells target Constitution and Dexterity, and 19 spells target Wisdom. And that's across all the classes. Not every class is going to have access to certain spells. Which makes targeting weak saves difficult to impossible.



All of which is to say: 14 works fine provided you're the one rolling the d20. It kind of falls flat if you have a set DC since rolling a d20 can cause even a +1 to succeed half the time on a DC 12. Hence why spellcasters generally care more about having a 16 at the start. Sure, having a 16 is great when you're a martial class, but having a 14 won't cause you to miss your attacks 50% of the time.

[Pex]

Partial disagree. I guess I'm sort of chasing...

Yeah, I know that I only really need a 14...But...Pfft...I'm not doing that - that's lame. Tasha's lets my Half-Orc Artificer have 16 Int, so I'm taking it.

Maybe you can find the player who's fine with a 14 but only take the 16 route because everyone else is an optimizer.

[noob]

If everyone has low stats, then the DM can just adjust encounters from deadly/hard to hard/medium.

Actually doing that would mean that heavy armor is sufficiently better than medium. Maybe we should all be playing with point buy but with like 21 points to spend.

That is not true, lots of gm does not wants to tinker with individual monster stats and would rather be able to freely toss monsters they find cool from the monster manual, dnd is a game, not a job.
So when the gm finds out that your adventuring party have only 10 to each stat and that it means a single lich would kill all the party and they do not want to edit the stats and spell list of a lich they find themselves having to change their plans and pick another weaker bbeg or something which might not be fun for them.

[Cheesegear]

That is not true, lots of gm does not wants to tinker with individual monster stats and would rather be able to freely toss monsters they find cool from the monster manual, dnd is a game, not a job.

Any DM who "freely tosses" monsters into an encounter, probably shouldn't be DMing.


So when the gm finds out that your adventuring party have only 10

Nobody is referring to 10s. When the OP said "low", they meant 14 - as opposed to 20.


it means a single lich would kill all the party

If a DM throws a Lich at a party that can obviously not handle it, they shouldn't be DMing. Unless the Lich TPKing the party is all part of the plan and leads to some Orcus/Shadowfell nonsense where the TPK is part of the story. Although if I threw an "unbeatable" boss at my players as part of a scripted story event...They'd be pissed. I would definitely believe some of my players could even walk out over that kind of storytelling.

For a 4-person party, the DM can throw a 'Hard' Lich at the party at Level 19/20. At Level 19/20, a 4-person party - even with low(er) stats - is more than capable of dealing with a Lich, unless they are deliberately making terrible choices, in addition to having low(er) stats.


change their plans

Change their what?
Show me a DM that doesn't change their plans every single session - sometimes during a session - and I'll more-than-likely be looking at a not-very-good DM.

[noob]

Any DM who "freely tosses" monsters into an encounter, probably shouldn't be DMing.



Nobody is referring to 10s. When the OP said "low", they meant 14 - as opposed to 20.



If a DM throws a Lich at a party that can obviously not handle it, they shouldn't be DMing.

For a 4-person party, the DM can throw a 'Hard' Lich at the party at Level 19/20. At Level 19/20, a 4-person party - even with low(er) stats - is more than capable of dealing with a Lich, unless they are deliberately making terrible choices, in addition to having low(er) stats.



Change their what?
Show me a DM that doesn't change their plans every single session - sometimes during a session - and I'll more-than-likely be looking at a not-very-good DM.

So basically you have extremely high standards for dming, I guess it is why there is so few dms: people setting absurdly high standards.

As for plans for bbegs, I am sorry but specific plots are easily generated with a lich, it is a highly destructive villain due to the whole "keeps eating souls" meaning that they have to find a way to cover up which they can with magic: liches basically writes themselves the scenario of a bbeg taking control of a country to cover up messed stuff without you needing to think very much.

[Cheesegear]

So basically you have extremely high standards for dming, I guess it is why there is so few dms.

I expect DMs to have read the rules.
I expect DMs to understand that no "plan" survives contact with players - although I myself, advocate for Quantum Ogres, but that's a different thread.
I expect DMs to understand that they are not "storytellers" or novel writers, and their role is to act and react to the party, not themselves.

[noob]

I expect DMs to have read the rules.
I expect DMs to understand that no "plan" survives contact with players - although I myself, advocate for Quantum Ogres, but that's a different thread.
I expect DMs to understand that they are not "storytellers" or novel writers, and their role is to act and react to the party, not themselves.

1: Rare, most dms does not reads the rules and the players often do not either.
2: Lots of dms fails by that metric ex: those who just wants to run a module.
3: those who does not understands that exists and it is from them that a bunch of dnd gming horror stories comes from.

So I can confirm that you are setting very high standards.

[sithlordnergal]

Any DM who "freely tosses" monsters into an encounter, probably shouldn't be DMing.

If a DM throws a Lich at a party that can obviously not handle it, they shouldn't be DMing. Unless the Lich TPKing the party is all part of the plan and leads to some Orcus/Shadowfell nonsense where the TPK is part of the story. Although if I threw an "unbeatable" boss at my players as part of a scripted story event...They'd be pissed. I would definitely believe some of my players could even walk out over that kind of storytelling.


Dunno about that, I find tossing in deadly enemies to be fun. Obviously I go for a thematic choice, but if the party can't handle an Ogre Zombie in Full Plate in a 10ft wide hallway being backed up by Skeletons, a Skull Lord with a modified spell list, a couple of Bodaks hidden behind 3/4th cover that's difficult to shoot through, and a pair of Wraiths that pop in and out of the walls to attack you, well I don't know what to tell ya. Make a stronger character, use better tactics, or die.

Real encounter I made by the way. The party survived by the skin of their teeth by being tactical. Give them some full cover to hide behind, and one of the players began stuffing the holes the Bodaks were attacking them from in order to block their Aura and Withering Gaze. I wanna say the party was around level 8 or 9. They would have died without utilizing cover and thinking outside of the box, but that's what I make these encounters for. =D

Now, I don't just throw things haphazardly, I know my party's capabilities. As for "unbeatable bosses", I've done that too. They technically weren't unbeatable, but I wouldn't expect a party that just reached Tier 2 to beat an Ancient Gold Dragon Vampire that has been modified. And they didn't. But it sure as hell motivated them to kill him, and that's what they're working towards right now.



Change their what?
Show me a DM that doesn't change their plans every single session - sometimes during a session - and I'll more-than-likely be looking at a not-very-good DM.

Depends on the kind of change, I do change plans up mid-session. I've only ever lowered the difficulty of an encounter once. I only did it one time, because I had done my job of hyping up a boss too much and the party was convinced they'd get slaughtered. They won of course, and I won't be lowering encounter difficulty again. As I said earlier, make a better character, use better tactics, or die in my campaigns. Plain and simple.

Also, you might think I'm a "bad DM" for that. Wanna know a fun fact? Never have I caused a TPK. Not once. I've killed players, gotten players an inch away from a TPK, which is always my goal in an encounter, but never caused a TPK.

[Cheesegear]

Make a stronger character, use better tactics, or die.

Arms race. Got it. Not something I like doing. But in most cases an arms race is sadly inevitable.


Also, you might think I'm a "bad DM" for that. Wanna know a fun fact? Never have I caused a TPK. Not once. I've killed players, gotten players an inch away from a TPK, which is always my goal in an encounter, but never caused a TPK.

I've killed lots of characters. Death is a very-expected part of my DMing. But only one TPK has ever happened on my watch. The party did something they were obviously not supposed to do ("...But like, wouldn't it be funny if we did the thing we're not supposed to do...The DM wont expect that!"), and then by coincidence they rolled multiple failures in a round, and I rolled a bunch of successes and crits.

You made terrible choices and the dice were on the DM's side. What can you do?

[sithlordnergal]

Arms race. Got it. Not something I like doing. But in most cases an arms race is sadly inevitable.


Dunno if I'd call it an "arms race". Just that if you expect to get far with a 14 in your primary, you might be disappointed. I'm not really one to lower difficulty in a game that is already a bit too easy. I'm not going to lower the difficulty just because a few players chose to take lower scores. Especially since I only do point buy, cutting out the danger of rolling a low score.

And hey, I've had players bring in meme characters that weren't expected to do much. When I ran ToA, the character that lasted the longest was literally a character everyone expected to die the moment combat arrived, including myself. But they survived, mostly by casting Greater Invisibility and acting as a party support/healer. Feel free to make a meme, or a weaker character, just know that you'll be working harder to keep them around.



I've killed lots of characters. Death is a very-expected part of my DMing. But only one TPK has ever happened on my watch. The party did something they were obviously not supposed to do ("...But like, wouldn't it be funny if we did the thing we're not supposed to do...The DM wont expect that!"), and then by coincidence they rolled multiple failures in a round, and I rolled a bunch of successes and crits.

You made terrible choices and the dice were on the DM's side. What can you do?

Yeah, not much you can do if a party decides to mess around and find out. Funnily enough, my parties only mess around like that when it doesn't matter. Going into a dungeon I made? They treat it like they're in the Tomb of Horrors, where every shadow is a potential black hole of pure death. Which they should because it has a 50% chance of being just that. Wandering through the country side? Lets see if we can make that ancient dragon over there mad cause it'd be funny.

[Pex]

Dunno about that, I find tossing in deadly enemies to be fun. Obviously I go for a thematic choice, but if the party can't handle an Ogre Zombie in Full Plate in a 10ft wide hallway being backed up by Skeletons, a Skull Lord with a modified spell list, a couple of Bodaks hidden behind 3/4th cover that's difficult to shoot through, and a pair of Wraiths that pop in and out of the walls to attack you, well I don't know what to tell ya. Make a stronger character, use better tactics, or die.

Real encounter I made by the way. The party survived by the skin of their teeth by being tactical. Give them some full cover to hide behind, and one of the players began stuffing the holes the Bodaks were attacking them from in order to block their Aura and Withering Gaze. I wanna say the party was around level 8 or 9. They would have died without utilizing cover and thinking outside of the box, but that's what I make these encounters for. =D

Now, I don't just throw things haphazardly, I know my party's capabilities. As for "unbeatable bosses", I've done that too. They technically weren't unbeatable, but I wouldn't expect a party that just reached Tier 2 to beat an Ancient Gold Dragon Vampire that has been modified. And they didn't. But it sure as hell motivated them to kill him, and that's what they're working towards right now.




Depends on the kind of change, I do change plans up mid-session. I've only ever lowered the difficulty of an encounter once. I only did it one time, because I had done my job of hyping up a boss too much and the party was convinced they'd get slaughtered. They won of course, and I won't be lowering encounter difficulty again. As I said earlier, make a better character, use better tactics, or die in my campaigns. Plain and simple.

Also, you might think I'm a "bad DM" for that. Wanna know a fun fact? Never have I caused a TPK. Not once. I've killed players, gotten players an inch away from a TPK, which is always my goal in an encounter, but never caused a TPK.

You don't need to TPK a party to be considered a bad DM. Good DMs can have a TPK. High lethal games don't necessarily have TPKs. It's about attitude. It's not your job as the DM to try to kill PCs. The bad guys want to, but not the DM. There's a difference. "Get gud or die" (my words) is not my cup of tea, but you do you. PCs winning a fight does not automatically make it a fun game. There can me be misery in the frustration of playing through it.

[Tanarii]

You don't need to TPK a party to be considered a bad DM. Good DMs can have a TPK. High lethal games don't necessarily have TPKs. It's about attitude. It's not your job as the DM to try to kill PCs. The bad guys want to, but not the DM. There's a difference. "Get gud or die" (my words) is not my cup of tea, but you do you. PCs winning a fight does not automatically make it a fun game. There can me misery in the frustration of playing through it.
Personally I prefer my "git gud scrub" stuff to be outside of a single combat. On the strategic rather than tactical layer, so to speak. Or if you prefer, on the exploration tactical rather than combat tactical. Even with WotC D&D and the included "charge through a dungeon" level of expected combat encounters, I still subconciously consider getting into any combat other than a well planned turkey shoot to be a failure state.

If I'm going to die heroically (or more classically, ignominiously) and be told it's my fault, I want that fault to have happened before the combat even started. :smallamused:

of course and in topic, taking and not increasing a 14 ability score could be considered a seriously-pre-combat decision to have made heh

[Pixel_Kitsune]

I mean you could always look at how like 2nd Ed AD&D did it.

Stats from 9-14 had impact on the classes that specifically used them. IE a Dex of 14 was better at Thief skills than a Dex of 11. A Wizard could only cast up to spell level = to Int-10 So would ultimately need to get a 19 eventually to cast everything they could learn.

But mechanics across the board only really took place once a stat hit 15+. Dex didn't give an Armor Class Boost til 15, Str gave a +1 Dmg at 16 I think and a +1/+1 at 17.

Con 15 and 16 gave +1/+2 HP per HD, but unless you were a Warrior (Fighter, Paladin, Ranger) it capped there no matter how high it was.

[Pex]

I mean you could always look at how like 2nd Ed AD&D did it.

Stats from 9-14 had impact on the classes that specifically used them. IE a Dex of 14 was better at Thief skills than a Dex of 11. A Wizard could only cast up to spell level = to Int-10 So would ultimately need to get a 19 eventually to cast everything they could learn.

But mechanics across the board only really took place once a stat hit 15+. Dex didn't give an Armor Class Boost til 15, Str gave a +1 Dmg at 16 I think and a +1/+1 at 17.

Con 15 and 16 gave +1/+2 HP per HD, but unless you were a Warrior (Fighter, Paladin, Ranger) it capped there no matter how high it was.

Yes. 3E is where ability scores started to matter more so that even a 12 gave something. It was in 2E that people got so obsessed and bothered with 18 at first level because that was where significant bonuses kicked in. A 16 in your prime gave you bonus XP, and it ballooned from there. 3E attempted to make lower scores matter and have players feel ok with them. I think it had mixed results because while a +1 is nice for a 12, an 18 for +4 was a big deal and for spellcasters gave a bonus spell slot for level 4 spells. Also a factor is tolerance level for PC power. 3E PCs are more powerful than 2E PCs on purpose or not. Some DMs even if never played 2E can't handle or resent having to handle powerful PCs. It's still true today, but it's more about features than ability scores.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Also a factor is tolerance level for PC power. 3E PCs are more powerful than 2E PCs on purpose or not. Some DMs even if never played 2E can't handle or resent having to handle powerful PCs. It's still true today, but it's more about features than ability scores.

Which is hilarious because things like Pun-Pun being the exception the most vicious things and builds I've ever seen in D&D were 2nd Edition Characters. Specially when the Player's Options books came along.

I have fond but amused memories of my Pixie Luck Priest who just got what is now Advantage on literally every roll all the time, turned invisible at will and I don't even remember what other nonsense I got up to.

And from before Player's Option I remember we were challenged to do an All Paladin game starting with enough XP to be a level 9 Paladin. But, DM allowed Dual Classing. So while everyone else picked Paladins with different kits I went Paladin to level 7 with Weapon Spec for 2 attacks/round, then dual classed to... Sha'ir from Al'Quadim.

And if you don't know what a Sha'Ir was, it was the first version of a Genie Lock. You weren't a normal mage, you had an elemental familiar called a Gen that you sent to go fetch spells. The drawback to the class was that it was a Squishy Wizard and, while it could conceivably cast EVERYTHING (No spells learned, just send the Gen and how long it took, how likely it was to succeed was based on various factors). And your casting was SLOW. But a level 8 Character could cast 9th level spells, albeit with a prep time of hours.

So, in comparison to what 5e throws around at level 9, I was a Level 7 Paladin with almost full HP (Because in 2nd ed you only got 9-10 HD, you stopped gaining HD and just got small bonuses in the teens) with full armor (Elven Plate) and 2 attacks per round. Who also had access to a version of 5e Wish that could cast 9th level spells too with the only draw back being that it took a while to get and might not work.

[zlefin]

I still think one of the best ways to help the issue is to make it harder to heavily pump one stat than to have a variety of stats. While it does mean more bookkeeping, I think it's simple enough that it's still doable in 5e. The basic plan being that instead of getting a straight +stat at a level, you get a number of point buy points, and you can buy the stats you want with them.

[Tanarii]

It was in 2E that people got so obsessed and bothered with 18 at first level because that was where significant bonuses kicked in. A 16 in your prime gave you bonus XP, and it ballooned from there.
I remember the vast majority of players being fine with 3d6 in order method (the default in 2e), unless they'd already decided they really wanted to play a character with certain attribute minimums. And that method doesn't often give you a 16+

[sithlordnergal]

You don't need to TPK a party to be considered a bad DM. Good DMs can have a TPK. High lethal games don't necessarily have TPKs. It's about attitude. It's not your job as the DM to try to kill PCs. The bad guys want to, but not the DM. There's a difference. "Get gud or die" (my words) is not my cup of tea, but you do you. PCs winning a fight does not automatically make it a fun game. There can me be misery in the frustration of playing through it.

I tend to find that, in 5e at least, a DM with a lot of TPKs is one that doesn't know how to properly balance an encounter. Its not nearly as easy to die in 5e as it used to be. Now, I don't count individual player deaths in my metric because a lot of things can kill a player, from bad luck, to poor decision making, to poor strategy, or bad team work. And while it isn't my job to kill a PC, I also have little reason to hold back against a PC. Basically if a PC can do it, so can an NPC.

[Cheesegear]

Personally I prefer my "git gud scrub" stuff to be outside of a single combat.

QFT.
I can't tell you how many times a Paladin has spent a Smite on "basically nothing" only two combats later complaining that they've run out of spell slots, and then they get whupped by the boss monster.

Character deaths are generally a result of multiple bad choices and a healthy dose of bad luck. Starting the campaign with "only" a 14 in your primary stat isn't generally something I would consider when doing a post-session "Why your character died and what you could have done differently."

...You died because you went toe-to-toe with the Boss, you spent all your Lay on Hands on niggles, and you kept Smite-ing garbage when you didn't have to, and the Boss said "Oh, you can't heal and you've run out of single-target burst damage? ...That's a shame..." and then punted you across the room. But the Hobgoblin Warlord didn't kill you. You "died" a while back when you spent your last spell slot on a regular Hobgoblin.

[Xervous]

I still think one of the best ways to help the issue is to make it harder to heavily pump one stat than to have a variety of stats. While it does mean more bookkeeping, I think it's simple enough that it's still doable in 5e. The basic plan being that instead of getting a straight +stat at a level, you get a number of point buy points, and you can buy the stats you want with them.

I set this up and the general consensus with the play group was that it “felt too complicated vs the rest of the game” (this only came up when mention of inviting others got floated due to attendance woes) and “felt bad to not spend all your points when you got them”.

While I could comment on the former, I’ll just say the latter banking of points cuts against the scheduled improvements of a leveled system.

[stoutstien]

I set this up and the general consensus with the play group was that it “felt too complicated vs the rest of the game” (this only came up when mention of inviting others got floated due to attendance woes) and “felt bad to not spend all your points when you got them”.

While I could comment on the former, I’ll just say the latter banking of points cuts against the scheduled improvements of a leveled system.

You just need a subsystem where banked points have a different use and value. So any unspent point added to certain checks or something of that sort.

[Xervous]

You just need a subsystem where banked points have a different use and value. So any unspent point added to certain checks or something of that sort.

This is another variable in the equation and could very well translate into the best play being holding points. If the discourse around 5e has demonstrated anything, it’s that some people will whine over the slightest differences in numbers. I let things stand, I could afford to draw a line because I’m not trying to market this to clueless Critters, grognards, and everything else under the sun and basement incandescents. WotC wouldn’t have such a luxury.

The numbers mapped readily to ASI progression for the old optimal picks and players were free to use that. I introduced the variant after the umptydozenth monk discussion. End results were mostly that saves ended up higher at later levels because of how lopsidedly ability scores are to character potency. Oh, and the monk was happy.

Something like INT hardly does anything for most characters. Even being able to buy it up to a 16 for relative coppers doesn’t mean much if a +4 delta is going to be checked at most 20 times across 50 sessions. Something like DEX could be checked 20 times in 20 sessions each.

[stoutstien]

This is another variable in the equation and could very well translate into the best play being holding points. If the discourse around 5e has demonstrated anything, it’s that some people will whine over the slightest differences in numbers. I let things stand, I could afford to draw a line because I’m not trying to market this to clueless Critters, grognards, and everything else under the sun and basement incandescents. WotC wouldn’t have such a luxury.

The numbers mapped readily to ASI progression for the old optimal picks and players were free to use that. I introduced the variant after the umptydozenth monk discussion. End results were mostly that saves ended up higher at later levels because of how lopsidedly ability scores are to character potency. Oh, and the monk was happy.

Something like INT hardly does anything for most characters. Even being able to buy it up to a 16 for relative coppers doesn’t mean much if a +4 delta is going to be checked at most 20 times across 50 sessions. Something like DEX could be checked 20 times in 20 sessions each.

I don't think it would all that hard but a also don't like the current weight that ability scores have either and I also think loop sides ability checks are a DM issue from assuming that the game accounts for this stuff so they don't take the time to spread out the frequency.
maybe I'm officially a grognard now because I don't understand those looking for homogenized game play. Uninteresting choices mean uninteresting play. Although I just let players pick their starting ability array so maybe I'm a hypocrite.

[Xervous]

I don't think it would all that hard but a also don't like the current weight that ability scores have either and I also think loop sides ability checks are a DM issue from assuming that the game accounts for this stuff so they don't take the time to spread out the frequency.
maybe I'm officially a grognard now because I don't understand those looking for homogenized game play. Uninteresting choices mean uninteresting play. Although I just let players pick their starting ability array so maybe I'm a hypocrite.

From the way I see it there’s no obligation to ensure an equal distribution of checks because the game never established that as an expectation. The rules are an interface for the players to access portions of the world through their characters. If one section of the rules is nebulous or simply inefficient they’ll just learn to avoid it and resent being forced to engage with it.

Selecting values for their non critical ability scores can be something of a gamble. They don’t know how much the score will be checked. For all that they (or most anyone) can truly move the score, most scenarios attempting to punish a ‘low’ score might either be defeated by the range of the D20 or claim victims who are heavily invested when said D20 displays a low roll. In order to let the values truly be felt you need to call for lots of rolls which everyone agrees is a great idea. The players avoid certain ability scores because they don’t see sufficient content behind them. For me, forcing content and checks tailored to the party’s composition in ignorance of their actions is undermining the players’ choices.

[stoutstien]

From the way I see it there’s no obligation to ensure an equal distribution of checks because the game never established that as an expectation. The rules are an interface for the players to access portions of the world through their characters. If one section of the rules is nebulous or simply inefficient they’ll just learn to avoid it and resent being forced to engage with it.

Selecting values for their non critical ability scores can be something of a gamble. They don’t know how much the score will be checked. For all that they (or most anyone) can truly move the score, most scenarios attempting to punish a ‘low’ score might either be defeated by the range of the D20 or claim victims who are heavily invested when said D20 displays a low roll. In order to let the values truly be felt you need to call for lots of rolls which everyone agrees is a great idea. The players avoid certain ability scores because they don’t see sufficient content behind them. For me, forcing content and checks tailored to the party’s composition in ignorance of their actions is undermining the players’ choices.

To me that is a symptom of two core design flaws. Putting too much weight in ability scores and in the distribution of the D20.

*That and the unspoken promise that all your problems can be solved with combat*

[Tanarii]

From the way I see it there’s no obligation to ensure an equal distribution of checks because the game never established that as an expectation. The rules are an interface for the players to access portions of the world through their characters. If one section of the rules is nebulous or simply inefficient they’ll just learn to avoid it and resent being forced to engage with it.
Indeed.

But each class having a primary score that almost everything in the class depends on for features (which almost exclusively means in combat) means that every member of that class is always good at the same non-combat ability checks.

If WotC divorced ability scores from class features again a la oD&D, BECMI and AD&D, they'd be able to set things up so you could actually make an honest-to-god non-Int&Wis dumping 2H Bladelock, Valor Bard or Ranger.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

I remember the vast majority of players being fine with 3d6 in order method (the default in 2e), unless they'd already decided they really wanted to play a character with certain attribute minimums. And that method doesn't often give you a 16+

Were they? Or was your group? We didn't have the Internet as we do now in the 80's and early 90's. My group quickly moved to 3d6 Reroll 1's, arrange to taste. Because 3d6 in order forced a character instead of letting you build what you wanted.

[Rukelnikov]

We used roll in order a couple times over the years, but most of the times we did 3d6 rearrange as you wish.

[Tanarii]

We used roll in order a couple times over the years, but most of the times we did 3d6 rearrange as you wish.
I played with a few groups that used alternative methods.

But it's admittedly a bit hazy. '93-95 were my college years, so lots of different groups blending together, but also plenty of stuff going on to make the memories fuzzy as well. :smallamused:

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Also to be fair, I had an odd approach into AD&D.

My first DM basically had just moved to AZ from Canada and had nothing. I had already bought the core books (PHB, MM, DMG) and he basically said "I'll split the cost of a Campaign setting and run it if you want me to DM." I had grown up playing the SSI DarkSun games and bought those, so went with DS. Didn't run a "regular" campaign til I decided to run Ravenloft a year later.

Longwinded way of saying the first year of my AD&D experience was a system where you rolled 5d4 for stats and had caps of 20 for the mid line.

[Pex]

QFT.
I can't tell you how many times a Paladin has spent a Smite on "basically nothing" only two combats later complaining that they've run out of spell slots, and then they get whupped by the boss monster.

Character deaths are generally a result of multiple bad choices and a healthy dose of bad luck. Starting the campaign with "only" a 14 in your primary stat isn't generally something I would consider when doing a post-session "Why your character died and what you could have done differently."

...You died because you went toe-to-toe with the Boss, you spent all your Lay on Hands on niggles, and you kept Smite-ing garbage when you didn't have to, and the Boss said "Oh, you can't heal and you've run out of single-target burst damage? ...That's a shame..." and then punted you across the room. But the Hobgoblin Warlord didn't kill you. You "died" a while back when you spent your last spell slot on a regular Hobgoblin.

On this I can agree. Players need to learn to conserve resources, especially not to use their big toys on the first opportunity for every first opportunity. (Once in a while it is necessary.) I see it often with young new spellcaster players. They cast their major spells as soon as possible then 90 minutes real world time later want to long rest. It is exciting to use your stuff, and you should use them, but it takes experience to learn when.

The flip side of course is when the players are conserving but so many encounters happen they have to use their stuff, but then the DM refuses to let them rest. Sometimes no one is to blame when a PC dies. Everyone could be doing everything right, but the dice hate the players that day. Maybe the player chose wrong, but he wasn't being dumb about it. A die roll made it wrong or it was inherently wrong but the player couldn't know until too later.

On a personal level I'm confident in my experience to know when a PC death happens because that's the game, the player's fault or DM's fault and the attitude behind it.

[Pex]

Indeed.

But each class having a primary score that almost everything in the class depends on for features (which almost exclusively means in combat) means that every member of that class is always good at the same non-combat ability checks.

If WotC divorced ability scores from class features again a la oD&D, BECMI and AD&D, they'd be able to set things up so you could actually make an honest-to-god non-Int&Wis dumping 2H Bladelock, Valor Bard or Ranger.

We know D&Done will have 4 subclasses for each class. What if each subclass used a different secondary ability score. Considering CO is for hit points we can rule that out. For example, all clerics have WI as their prime, but then each subclass can each individually want ST, DX, IN, CH - Warrior, Sneak, Knowledge, Support. All Fighters want ST, then each subclass is DX, IN, WI, CH - Versatility, Tactics, Champion, Leader. This idea has been brought up before in threads past under different context.

[animorte]

We know D&Done will have 4 subclasses for each class. What if each subclass used a different secondary ability score. Considering CO is for hit points we can rule that out. For example, all clerics have WI as their prime, but then each subclass can each individually want ST, DX, IN, CH - Warrior, Sneak, Knowledge, Support. All Fighters want ST, then each subclass is DX, IN, WI, CH - Versatility, Tactics, Champion, Leader. This idea has been brought up before in threads past under different context.
I wouldn't be opposed to this. It helps to set apart each subclass with a specific purpose. I can see a greater chance of overlap under this method though.

[Rukelnikov]

We know D&Done will have 4 subclasses for each class. What if each subclass used a different secondary ability score. Considering CO is for hit points we can rule that out. For example, all clerics have WI as their prime, but then each subclass can each individually want ST, DX, IN, CH - Warrior, Sneak, Knowledge, Support. All Fighters want ST, then each subclass is DX, IN, WI, CH - Versatility, Tactics, Champion, Leader. This idea has been brought up before in threads past under different context.

It sounds elegant, but I don't know if its a good idea. There's a very good chance it basically ends shoehorning character building, you wanna play a barbarian with good wisdom? Then this is your subclass, wanna play a Rogue with high Strength? This is your subclass.

It doesn't necessarily have to be like that, but I think that's how it would end up more often than not.

[Pex]

It sounds elegant, but I don't know if its a good idea. There's a very good chance it basically ends shoehorning character building, you wanna play a barbarian with good wisdom? Then this is your subclass, wanna play a Rogue with high Strength? This is your subclass.

It doesn't necessarily have to be like that, but I think that's how it would end up more often than not.

That is what splat books are for. For now it would be the base, and I see nothing wrong with this. Why be a ST rogue if you aren't getting anything out of having high ST? In 5E now warrior clerics want high ST. The only difference is in Domain. Plenty offer heavy armor and martial weapons. Blame D&Done for lowering the number of Domains/options. The idea has nothing to do with it.

[strangebloke]

I don't have data, but I strongly suspect that almost nobody wants to play with randomized stats these days. DND culture as it currently exists has come a LONG way from the "your character is eaten by the wall, which was secretly a mimic" days. In the old days when characters were generated rather than built, and would have a 1 to 2 sentence backstory if that, the game was much more about the tabletop boardgame aspect than the "roleplay" aspect.

These days, things have heavily been reversed. People commission custom art, buy custom miniatures, write up five page backstories. There are parties where entire sessions might go by without a single dice roll!

In such a context, people do not want randomly assigned stats. People in such a context want narrow and particular control over every aspect of their character. Sometimes this will mean they want high stats, sometimes it will mean they want low stats (and I do think it is important to stress that low stats are not a mechanical death sentence) but either way the players want control.

As a thought exercise, consider a game where all the PCs can choose any starting stats. Anything between 6 and 20. Just let them pick how big of stats they want their characters to have.

What does this actually break? Really, what does it break? A druid with 12 WIS is still conjuring animals and turning into a grizzly. A barbarian with 20 INT is still fundamentally a barbarian.

the stats don't matter and frankly any level of obsession over them is kind of missing the forest for the sight of the trees, at least IMO.

[Rukelnikov]

As a thought exercise, consider a game where all the PCs can choose any starting stats. Anything between 6 and 20. Just let them pick how big of stats they want their characters to have.

What does this actually break? Really, what does it break? A druid with 12 WIS is still conjuring animals and turning into a grizzly. A barbarian with 20 INT is still fundamentally a barbarian.

the stats don't matter and frankly any level of obsession over them is kind of missing the forest for the sight of the trees, at least IMO.

I agree to a certain extent, but personally few things top the anticipation of rolling stats for my new character.

[strangebloke]

I agree to a certain extent, but personally few things top the anticipation of rolling stats for my new character.

Sure but I guess that's sort of where I'm going with this. You're viewing rolling as a nudge in a certain mechanical direction, a way to think about what you might want to play, other people just think of it as a way of personalizing their character.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Sure but I guess that's sort of where I'm going with this. You're viewing rolling as a nudge in a certain mechanical direction, a way to think about what you might want to play, other people just think of it as a way of personalizing their character.

My players all have characters in mind and exclusively roll stats, despite other options being available. And have for several different groups of people. Ok, one player randomly generated their whole character.

So I'm not sure your thought holds generally.

I do agree that stats don't really matter much in the grand scheme of things.

[strangebloke]

My players all have characters in mind and exclusively roll stats, despite other options being available. And have for several different groups of people. Ok, one player randomly generated their whole character.

So I'm not sure your thought holds generally.

I do agree that stats don't really matter much in the grand scheme of things.

Doesn't make any sense to me.

Like stats don't generally matter that much, but for certain concepts they absolutely do. Say you envision your character as a monk/paladin, that's not going to work with no stats above 13. you're going to be woefully ineffectual compared to most other characters.

And why? Because its "legit?"

Most tables I've been at that roll for stats, the player will look mournfully at the DM if they roll bad and ask for a mulligan (and usually get it).

Pointless runaround unless you're willing to stick with it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Doesn't make any sense to me.

Like stats don't generally matter that much, but for certain concepts they absolutely do. Say you envision your character as a monk/paladin, that's not going to work with no stats above 13. you're going to be woefully ineffectual compared to most other characters.

And why? Because its "legit?"

Most tables I've been at that roll for stats, the player will look mournfully at the DM if they roll bad and ask for a mulligan (and usually get it).

Pointless runaround unless you're willing to stick with it.

I rolled something like 15 11 11 11 10 10 for my bard. Kept it.

In one of my parties we've got someone with a +0 con and only one character has an +4 primary stat at level 6. The druid's int and wis are the same at +2. Things are fine because I know those facts.

Not everyone cares all that much about mechanics. Sure, they don't anti-optimize, but as long as their primary is like +2 at level 1, they're ok with life.

[sithlordnergal]

I rolled something like 15 11 11 11 10 10 for my bard. Kept it.

In one of my parties we've got someone with a +0 con and only one character has an +4 primary stat at level 6. The druid's int and wis are the same at +2. Things are fine because I know those facts.

Not everyone cares all that much about mechanics. Sure, they don't anti-optimize, but as long as their primary is like +2 at level 1, they're ok with life.

Blurg, that sort of roll would make me recoil, and try to either ask for a recoil, or simply look to kill off the character as soon as possible. >_O

[Dork_Forge]

Blurg, that sort of roll would make me recoil, and try to either ask for a recoil, or simply look to kill off the character as soon as possible. >_O

Whilst it isn't exactly great, racials would make that workable on a Bard, their cantrip just becomes sword and maybe they lean into shoving/grappling.

[Silly Name]

Blurg, that sort of roll would make me recoil, and try to either ask for a recoil, or simply look to kill off the character as soon as possible. >_O

Meh, just be a Human and have 16 12 12 12 11 11.

16 into CHA, 12 into CON and DEX. Perfectly playable character - you likely want to stay in the back, but, hey, you're a Bard, you weren't going to frontline unless going for Swords or Valor college. You can still do all the Bard stuff just fine.

Such an array is really "bad" only for MAD classes like Paladin, Monk, Ranger and to a lesser extent the Barbarian (but racials may help you out here).

[stoutstien]

I rolled something like 15 11 11 11 10 10 for my bard. Kept it.

In one of my parties we've got someone with a +0 con and only one character has an +4 primary stat at level 6. The druid's int and wis are the same at +2. Things are fine because I know those facts.

Not everyone cares all that much about mechanics. Sure, they don't anti-optimize, but as long as their primary is like +2 at level 1, they're ok with life.

Yeah. We all know that primary stats being higher is better but starting out relatively high also prevents growth so it kinda conflicts with a game that has such a large range of progress.

[Amechra]

And so the monks were no more :smallbiggrin:

If you want to have people play Monks in games with lower stats, just make their Unarmored Defense 11+Dex+Wis, with +1 to AC if they're unarmed.

Actually, maybe try that even if you aren't playing with low scores...


You only need one 'face', one 'bookworm', one 'strong pushguy', etc.

The thing is that this is honestly a good thing, in a party-composition sense. The problem is that the way that 5e's ability scores and proficiencies are set up makes it so that being the "back-up" face (or whatever) costs you almost as much as being the actual specialist... except that your "half-way" investment doesn't scale nearly as well because you probably aren't boosting that ability score as you level up or looking for persistent advantage/expertise on appropriate checks.

To pull numbers out of my butt, it feels like you're putting in 2/3rds of the effort to get 1/3 of the benefit.

[Mastikator]

As a thought exercise, consider a game where all the PCs can choose any starting stats. Anything between 6 and 20. Just let them pick how big of stats they want their characters to have.

What does this actually break? Really, what does it break? A druid with 12 WIS is still conjuring animals and turning into a grizzly. A barbarian with 20 INT is still fundamentally a barbarian.

the stats don't matter and frankly any level of obsession over them is kind of missing the forest for the sight of the trees, at least IMO.

It would make MAD classes, gish and multiclass characters relatively stronger, funnily barbarians would have the highest AC funnily enough. Heavy armor would be pretty much redundant also, unless you find a +3 plate.

[sithlordnergal]

Meh, just be a Human and have 16 12 12 12 11 11.

16 into CHA, 12 into CON and DEX. Perfectly playable character - you likely want to stay in the back, but, hey, you're a Bard, you weren't going to frontline unless going for Swords or Valor college. You can still do all the Bard stuff just fine.

Such an array is really "bad" only for MAD classes like Paladin, Monk, Ranger and to a lesser extent the Barbarian (but racials may help you out here).

The 16 is fine, I just would never really be able to play a character with only a +1 in your Con and Secondary stat. I'd likely end up playing them pretty recklessly...

[Pex]

The 16 is fine, I just would never really be able to play a character with only a +1 in your Con and Secondary stat. I'd likely end up playing them pretty recklessly...

I too believe in the adventurer's tax of you need at least a 14 CON. However, there are ways around this. Play a Dragon Sorcerer for +1 HP per level to help break even. Play a hill dwarf for +1 HP per level. Play Variant Human and take Tough if no other feat is crucial.

There's also a matter of trust in the DM. If everyone is in the low score range then hopefully the DM takes this into account. Even in "normal" play I'm not a fan of 1st level play, but I find myself relieved when a combat happens and the bad guys are only doing 1-3 hit points of damage. It's comforting the DM knows what's he is doing, when he understands the PCs aren't uberpowerful monstrosities unleash the kraken upon them.

[Kane0]

I too believe in the adventurer's tax of you need at least a 14 CON. However, there are ways around this. Play a Dragon Sorcerer for +1 HP per level to help break even. Play a hill dwarf for +1 HP per level. Play Variant Human and take Tough if no other feat is crucial.


Shoutout to Stout Halflings, they're commonly forgotten.

[strangebloke]

It would make MAD classes, gish and multiclass characters relatively stronger, funnily barbarians would have the highest AC funnily enough. Heavy armor would be pretty much redundant also, unless you find a +3 plate.

Hence why it'd be interesting.

In many ways, if you truly don't like the optimization minigame, the solution is to just throw out the arbitrary challenge of it and let players do what they want. You'll see barbarians with insane AC, champion fighters with 20/20/20/20/20/20 stat lines, and sad miserable little gnomish druids who deliberately gave themselves terrible ability scores.

[Ogre Mage]

I rolled something like 15 11 11 11 10 10 for my bard. Kept it.


I would not have kept those rolls. Those scores are equivalent to 22 point buy. In the games I play in that character would struggle compared to the rest of the party.

If my rolls had been 15 14 11 11 10 10 I might have considered keeping them.

[Isaire]

The concept of "keeping" rolls is a strange one. If you roll a nat 1, do you decide to not keep it and just roll again? If you're not going to keep rolls, then you just should not roll to start.. I don't personally see the fun of rolling and then deciding whether or not the roll mattered afterwards

[strangebloke]

The concept of "keeping" rolls is a strange one. If you roll a nat 1, do you decide to not keep it and just roll again? If you're not going to keep rolls, then you just should not roll to start.. I don't personally see the fun of rolling and then deciding whether or not the roll mattered afterwards

Agreed. DMs I've seen almost always hedge the rolls with so many caveats (4d6 drop lowest... and you can mulligan if you get a bad roll... or you can roll 8 sets of 3d6 and keep the 6 highest sets) that it doesn't really end up being that random.

if you roll a 4 put that 4 on your character sheet. If you're a DM, make your player stick to the roll.

If you're not doing that, why are you rolling at all?

[Snails]

The concept of "keeping" rolls is a strange one. If you roll a nat 1, do you decide to not keep it and just roll again? If you're not going to keep rolls, then you just should not roll to start.. I don't personally see the fun of rolling and then deciding whether or not the roll mattered afterwards

It is a fair point, albeit I believe you would be an outlier in your perspective.

There is a general trend is for players to be less tolerant of luck of the dice significantly hampering their PCs as the expectations for campaign length and character roleplaying increase. Myself, I strongly prefer point-buy for long campaigns, but I am very open to playing all kinds of peculiar characters for short campaigns and rolling the dice works for me then. Most players seem to have a qualitatively similar "preference curve" even if the practical cutoffs points vary a lot.

"Keeping" is just a fudge, and it has existed in some form since the days of proto-D&D. When players are running multiple "units" (PCs) and the per session attrition rates are >50%, there are organic ways of letting a PC die without refusing to play it. Charging aggressively with your low stat PC and holding back with your high stat PC is not fundamentally different from "keeping" only the PCs you like.

And such has been done in games when playing just one PC since forever, too. But in what way is playing a weak PC for one session in order the "earn" the right to roll again next session such a great thing?

If you strongly prefer rolling, that is fine by me. But most people imagine roleplaying as choosing to play a character that resembles a hero found in myth, movie, book, comic, etc. Rolling the stats is not usually a benefit for to those ends IME. Point buy as we know it is hardly perfect, but it is a compromise that everyone seems to be able to work with.

[Zuras]

The concept of "keeping" rolls is a strange one. If you roll a nat 1, do you decide to not keep it and just roll again? If you're not going to keep rolls, then you just should not roll to start.. I don't personally see the fun of rolling and then deciding whether or not the roll mattered afterwards

I mean, character creation is completely different from rolling dice in-game, since during a game you are rolling dice in response to actions you took and choices you made. You don’t actually get any choice about existing—most games don’t have an option of playing a statless character.

If you had a choice between rolling or standard array, then sure, you gambled and lost. All D&D versions since 3e are so stat dependent that making someone suffer for gambling the whole campaign just isn’t sporting, though. If you want to roll 3d6 in order, stick with the OD&D modifiers (-1 for below 7, +1 for above 14). There’s a reason grognards didn’t whine as much about ability score back in the day: they used to matter less.

[sithlordnergal]

The concept of "keeping" rolls is a strange one. If you roll a nat 1, do you decide to not keep it and just roll again? If you're not going to keep rolls, then you just should not roll to start.. I don't personally see the fun of rolling and then deciding whether or not the roll mattered afterwards

So, its two fold:

First, rolling a nat 1 usually isn't going to be as detrimental to a character as rolling insanely low stats. Sure, a nat 1 can get you killed if you have really bad luck, but if you had bad luck in stat generation and ended up with a 15 and nothing but 11's and 10's afterward? Well...I hope you enjoy playing a SAD class with no Secondary stats or Con to speak of.

Second, a lot of DMs have a bit of a grace thing, and allow rerolls if your total ability score modifier ends up less than a certain number. So lets say you roll for stats, get a 15, 6, 11, 9, 12, 7. Adding your modifiers together you get a total of -2. Most DMs will let you reroll the entire thing, or keep them if you want a challenge.

[Snails]

ThereÂ’s a reason grognards didnÂ’t whine as much about ability score back in the day: they used to matter less.

True. Furthermore...

Grognards played lots of wargames. In a typical miniatures war game, losing only 50% of your units while defeating all opposition would rate as an astounding success. Per battle.

Transitioning towards a roleplaying campaign, if ballpark 50% attrition per session is still common, then there is little point in worrying over stats. (Also, in this world short campaign are still very common.)

Your PC "half-life" was very short for low level PCs, regardless of stats. It is a pretty special PC that survives to 4th or 5th level, where it finally has a bit of robustness. And at that point, you might care a lot more about the random cool magic item your PC has than its stats.

[Pex]

The concept of "keeping" rolls is a strange one. If you roll a nat 1, do you decide to not keep it and just roll again? If you're not going to keep rolls, then you just should not roll to start.. I don't personally see the fun of rolling and then deciding whether or not the roll mattered afterwards

Allowing rerolls is an acknowledgement that game math matters and of the inherent luck factor. Rerolling is not to get an uberarray but not to have an incompetent array. Using dice rolling at all allows for arrays you won't see using Point Buy. If not using floating ASI for racial modifiers you're more likely to see non-stereotypical race/class combinations. As per the thread a 14 in your prime is not a catastrophe, but for some people they want the 16+, and they are not wrong to want it. If they roll a 16 to put in their prime, they can be happy enough to have it to play a halfling barbarian or dwarf bard. True, some will want the racial playing to stereotype to get the 18. They can do that. Having an 18 at 1st level is not a crime against the Geneva Convention. However, dice rolling allows for the potential to satisfy everyone for whatever they want, if dice roll rerolls are allowed. If not, those who are dissatisfied if they don't suicide to play another character may suddenly find their work schedule changes and can't play anymore. It's a sad reality.

[Tanarii]

Having an 18 at 1st level is not a crime against the Geneva Convention.
"Sorry sir. We're going to have to ask you to hand over your dice and come with us, you have an appointment at The Hague."

Imagine what would happen if you hit the 9% odds jackpot and rolled at least one 18, and started with a 20?

[Ogre Mage]

The concept of "keeping" rolls is a strange one. If you roll a nat 1, do you decide to not keep it and just roll again? If you're not going to keep rolls, then you just should not roll to start.. I don't personally see the fun of rolling and then deciding whether or not the roll mattered afterwards


Agreed. DMs I've seen almost always hedge the rolls with so many caveats (4d6 drop lowest... and you can mulligan if you get a bad roll... or you can roll 8 sets of 3d6 and keep the 6 highest sets) that it doesn't really end up being that random.

if you roll a 4 put that 4 on your character sheet. If you're a DM, make your player stick to the roll.

If you're not doing that, why are you rolling at all?

I do NOT favor rolling for stats except perhaps in cases where the entire party is using the same set of rolled numbers. When everyone rolls stats individually you can wind up with a situation where one player has very high attribute scores and another player has poor scores. Perhaps some people are content being essentially a sidekick to other party members. I have been in the sidekick position (the PC with low attributes) and I hated it. I have also been in the position of the PC with high stats while someone else was low and that low attribute character felt like dead weight. Basically his usefulness was taking two or three hits and then going down, lol.

[LurkerShep]

Me personally, I rolled my stats and got a low set. I was alright with playing it, but after sharing my numbers with my DM he insisted I re-roll. I got a better set, but I would have been okay with what I originally got, I just laughed at it (it was something like two 10s, an 11, a 12 and I can't remember what else). I'd have figured out something to play to make use of them.

On the other hand, I did a round table roll for the game I'm playing. Everyone rolled once, I rolled twice (the first and last rolls of the rotation), and everyone used that array and still are. So there are no outliers and their racial stat boosts still matter (some used Tasha's rule, some did not). It seems to work well for my group and they seem pleased with the results of the rolls.

[Zhorn]

The conversation keeps circling a central point
it isn't low scores that people have a problem with; it's having lower scores than others at the same table

If everyone has high scores, the DM will use higher numbers for the enemies to the point where the game is no longer a cake walk, or not and the party will get bored of a game with no challenge.
If everyone has low scores, either the party will TPK, or the DM will use lower numbers for the enemies to where the party isn't outmatched to the point of an inevitable TPK.

[False God]

IMO, you'd need a smaller die. A +2 doesn't mean much in the face of +/-20.

[Snails]

BTW, there is a method of randomizing that my group usually uses, and gains most of the advantages of rolling while limiting the downsides....

Pull out the 24 A-2-3-4-5-6 cards from a standard deck, and shuffle and deal these into six piles for your "rolls". Keep 3 of 4 cards, of course. In order. But you may swap two values.

This forces a degree of adaptability on the player, and high rolls tend to come with low rolls attached. No array is ever going to be truly bad. You are extremely likely to have at least one 14.

[Snails]

The conversation keeps circling a central point
it isn't low scores that people have a problem with; it's having lower scores than others at the same table

And it is not theoretical that DMs may adjust the game in ways that effectively punish a player for the high rolls of other PCs.

Back in 2e I was playing a "knight in shining armor" and expressed frustration that in spite of the fact that being heavily armored was supposedly a benefit, my AC was lagging everyone elses because they were getting good AC items and I was never finding even a +1 shield or +1 plate. I was told: "Well, I do not like giving those out because then the AC might get too high." My PC did not have a high Dex so a very high AC was impossible. This was a secret unwritten houserule purely to keep a lid on the players who rolled much better than me.

In hindsight, I probably should have just ditched that PC right then and there, and kept suiciding PCs until I got high stats like everyone else in the party.

[Pex]

BTW, there is a method of randomizing that my group usually uses, and gains most of the advantages of rolling while limiting the downsides....

Pull out the 24 A-2-3-4-5-6 cards from a standard deck, and shuffle and deal these into six piles for your "rolls". Keep 3 of 4 cards, of course. In order. But you may swap two values.

This forces a degree of adaptability on the player, and high rolls tend to come with low rolls attached. No array is ever going to be truly bad. You are extremely likely to have at least one 14.

I just tried this. Got:

13 15 13 10 10 14

Second try:

12 12 11 13 15 12

Third time the charm:

16 13 8 7 15 12

Definitely do not like keep in order despite swap. Keep in order is always bad.

Before racial modifiers you get one or two "good" scores and medium for the rest. If you get high you will get low. Not quite a fan of the method but can get over it if you get rid of "in order".

[Skrum]

I just tried this. Got:

13 15 13 10 10 14

Second try:

12 12 11 13 15 12

Third time the charm:

16 13 8 7 15 12

Definitely do not like keep in order despite swap. Keep in order is always bad.

Before racial modifiers you get one or two "good" scores and medium for the rest. If you get high you will get low. Not quite a fan of the method but can get over it if you get rid of "in order".

Ermagerd 8 Con. With 16 Str. That's....ok nothing is unplayable, but that's bad. The 15 Wisdom is solid - play druid, and hide your 8 Con. Kinda the only way to go.

[Witty Username]

The concept of "keeping" rolls is a strange one. If you roll a nat 1, do you decide to not keep it and just roll again? If you're not going to keep rolls, then you just should not roll to start.. I don't personally see the fun of rolling and then deciding whether or not the roll mattered afterwards

Think of it as a short hand,
If you roll stats and your highest is something like an 8, make a character, go one session, die, then roll again.

Mulliganing is a means to have this, but not waste as much time on character creation.

Some people (me) want to go the distance with a low stat character, others are just trying to get some variety from 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8. My current group uses 4d6, drop lowest reroll 1s ATM, back in 3.5 I personally liked "point by floor" (roll a set, 4d6 drop lowest, then either take the rolls or use point by)
Recently did a one-shot where I used 3d6 straight, I think I will be shifting to that more as time goes on.

[Snails]

Before racial modifiers you get one or two "good" scores and medium for the rest. If you get high you will get low. Not quite a fan of the method but can get over it if you get rid of "in order".

Assume we ditch "in order". Is there anything specific you dislike? Like?

The average stat is likely to be higher than standard point buy. And it has variations extremely similar to dice rolling while keeping the swings within a box that avoids anything likely to be problematic.

[Snails]

Third time the charm:

16 13 8 7 15 12



Ermagerd 8 Con. With 16 Str. That's....ok nothing is unplayable, but that's bad. The 15 Wisdom is solid - play druid, and hide your 8 Con. Kinda the only way to go.

Sticking to strict order sucks with that Con. Swapping two values as suggested, there are lots of possibilities. Make the Con a 16, 13, 15, 12 or stuff the 8 elsewhere -- many very playable combinations.

[Tanarii]

Definitely do not like keep in order despite swap. Keep in order is always bad.

Before racial modifiers you get one or two "good" scores and medium for the rest. If you get high you will get low. Not quite a fan of the method but can get over it if you get rid of "in order".


Ermagerd 8 Con. With 16 Str. That's....ok nothing is unplayable, but that's bad. The 15 Wisdom is solid - play druid, and hide your 8 Con. Kinda the only way to go.


Sticking to strict order sucks with that Con. Swapping two values as suggested, there are lots of possibilities. Make the Con a 16, 13, 15, 12 or stuff the 8 elsewhere -- many very playable combinations.

"Roll in order" is not a viable method with any WotC D&D game. Precisely because of the value Con has. It's basically a required 12-14 starting score for all characters.

Personally I'd be happier if they just got rid of Con altogether. It's an attribute I feel no longer works properly now they've shifted to a mod that scales every 2 attribute points, be it rolling, standard array, or point buy. But it definitely makes "in order" completely non-viable.

Secondary is the Str/Dex contention. If you end up low in both, your options is a Hill Dwarf with one of 4 of 7 Cleric Domains for HA. Or any race that is a (probably Moon) Druid. You might be able to pull off a Wizard/sorcerer if your table meets a series of requirements: a big enough party relative to the openness of the adventuring environments that you can usually hide in back; almost never ambushed from behind; almost never get hit by AoEs; rolled a 16-18 high Con.

[Witty Username]

Con is the ultimate test of low scorces, no class uses it as a primary stat (so it avoids contrarianism) but it is a secondary stat for everyone.

Fundamentally, if a char with 8 con can function, ability scores don't matter, apart from the primary.
--
Organic method as I know it, roll in order, worked fine for 3.5 (I used and saw it used a few times). For 5e, I think tertiary stats aren't worth enough to allow for it.

[JellyPooga]

12-14 Con is not a requirement.

Having a -ve score in Con does not make a character unplayable.

If you, personally, don't like having low Con/HP, then that's fine, but it does not break the game, the party or everyone's fun to have a character that is suceptible to effects based off Con saves or HP damage.

Does it have ramifications? Just as surely as having a character that's awful at Stealth does. Does that make Stealth proficiency or Dex 12-14 essential? Of course not. "Oh but you can work around low Stealth". Yeah, just like you can work around low Con/HP.

It bugs me when I read about or encounter players that consoder Con, or its lack of, being this super critical aspect of everyone having fun at the table because it's simply not the case.

[PhoenixPhyre]

12-14 Con is not a requirement.

Having a -ve score in Con does not make a character unplayable.

If you, personally, don't like having low Con/HP, then that's fine, but it does not break the game, the party or everyone's fun to have a character that is suceptible to effects based off Con saves or HP damage.

Does it have ramifications? Just as surely as having a character that's awful at Stealth does. Does that make Stealth proficiency or Dex 12-14 essential? Of course not. "Oh but you can work around low Stealth". Yeah, just like you can work around low Con/HP.

It bugs me when I read about or encounter players that consoder Con, or its lack of, being this super critical aspect of everyone having fun at the table because it's simply not the case.

I agree with this. At a non-competitive table where the DM takes the party into consideration when planning the challenges (which is the game's default), the bounds are really really wide. I've got a ranger with 0 con mod; he's functional. I've got a cleric (same party) with +1 con mod who rolled really really poorly for HP--she's got something like 30 at level 6. They're functional, just have to be a bit more careful.

[Rukelnikov]

12-14 Con is not a requirement.

Having a -ve score in Con does not make a character unplayable.

If you, personally, don't like having low Con/HP, then that's fine, but it does not break the game, the party or everyone's fun to have a character that is suceptible to effects based off Con saves or HP damage.

Does it have ramifications? Just as surely as having a character that's awful at Stealth does. Does that make Stealth proficiency or Dex 12-14 essential? Of course not. "Oh but you can work around low Stealth". Yeah, just like you can work around low Con/HP.

It bugs me when I read about or encounter players that consoder Con, or its lack of, being this super critical aspect of everyone having fun at the table because it's simply not the case.

The thing is, contrary to other stats, Con has diminishing returns, going from +1 to +2 is less valuable than from +2 to +3, since percentage wise you are gaining less hp for each modifier, this means going from 8 to 12, is cheaper and more valuable than going from 12 to 16, which makes having a 12 in Con an impactful and cheap investment.

[Zuras]

12-14 Con is not a requirement.

Having a -ve score in Con does not make a character unplayable.

If you, personally, don't like having low Con/HP, then that's fine, but it does not break the game, the party or everyone's fun to have a character that is suceptible to effects based off Con saves or HP damage.

Does it have ramifications? Just as surely as having a character that's awful at Stealth does. Does that make Stealth proficiency or Dex 12-14 essential? Of course not. "Oh but you can work around low Stealth". Yeah, just like you can work around low Con/HP.

It bugs me when I read about or encounter players that consoder Con, or its lack of, being this super critical aspect of everyone having fun at the table because it's simply not the case.

Being awful at stealth is probably worse than having a low Constitution, honestly. I’ve played and run AL games where one player brought a Dex-dumping heavy armor PC to the party and made everything about five times harder for everyone else. People just rolled their eyes in the one-shots, but in the campaign it led to some simmering resentment till the Druid got their hands on a Staff of the Woodlands and could cast Pass Without Trace at-will.

[Snails]

Swinginess tends to disfavor the players. There are many ways to mitigate swinginess, but Con 12 and Con 14 are extremely cheap for the positive impact.

Furthermore, a defensive factor like Con is the least problematic in terms of potentially negatively impacting the game in some manner. A primary stat of 20 at level 1 might annoy in various ways. But if the Luck Fairy were to somehow gift a Con 20 at level 1, that is something that would be easy to shrug and not worry over, relatively speaking.

I can see a strong argument for simply ditching Con altogether. Some races and feats could grant bonuses. The best counterargument I can think of is it would be more natural to have a Con score if we want a Con save in the game.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Being awful at stealth is probably worse than having a low Constitution, honestly. I’ve played and run AL games where one player brought a Dex-dumping heavy armor PC to the party and made everything about five times harder for everyone else. People just rolled their eyes in the one-shots, but in the campaign it led to some simmering resentment till the Druid got their hands on a Staff of the Woodlands and could cast Pass Without Trace at-will.

Ehh, that's very scenario and party dependent. My parties like the idea of being stealthy, but when push comes to shove, they actually just charge in guns (metaphorically) blazing.

[Amnestic]

I can see a strong argument for simply ditching Con altogether. Some races and feats could grant bonuses. The best counterargument I can think of is it would be more natural to have a Con score if we want a Con save in the game.

Replace all Consaves with Strength saves! Muscle wizards galore.

[Zuras]

Ehh, that's very scenario and party dependent. My parties like the idea of being stealthy, but when push comes to shove, they actually just charge in guns (metaphorically) blazing.

Sure. In this case we were playing Storm King’s Thunder, so actually getting to melee range of giants, or being noisy and triggering encounters with multiple giants at once, was quite sub-optimal.

[noob]

If we merged str and con we would sometimes see barbarian not struggling with low point buy.

[Theodoxus]

I agree to a certain extent, but personally few things top the anticipation of rolling stats for my new character.
(I stopped reading the thread at this point, so if I'm repeating someone, I apologize)

That's the fun thing about picking stats. It doesn't matter how you pick them. If you still want fate/luck/rolls to decide your new character, you can still roll. And then declare "this is what I picked".

The only time I think this might be problematic is if there are is 1 or more people in the group that decide they're going to faceroll through every encounter so decide to go with straight 20s, and you've determined to go 3d6 in order... Of course, this thought exercise is completely theoretical white board stuff, since the few times I've offered 'pick your stats', even the most min-maxy player at the table went with a relatively modest stat set (with of course his 1 '20', because yeah). Even when I go PB or roll, I give everyone a free 18 if they want it. But it's always about choice. And for the edgelords out there that decide to combine Raistlin and Caramon, only taking their worst attributes together - if (and typically when) the character dies because the rest of team is decent to good in their stats and I didn't pull punches, they only have themselves to blame.

I think I'm going to codify 'pick your stats' as the generation method for the OSR game I'm brewing up. I'm sure others have done so, but I haven't come across any yet in my relatively extensive research... so, just might be the One Unique Thing I'm looking for.

[strangebloke]

All that combining STR and CON would do is mean that everyone puts STRCON as their second or third most important stat, same as CON is now. Classes like melee fighters and barbarians would benefit a bit, but the biggest effect would be that loads of characters would be just really buff and good at strength checks even if its not suited to their archetype. You could tweak the values of the point buy to make stats more scarce, but the loser there is primarily going to be someone like the monk

[Theodoxus]

All that combining STR and CON would do is mean that everyone puts STRCON as their second or third most important stat, same as CON is now. Classes like melee fighters and barbarians would benefit a bit, but the biggest effect would be that loads of characters would be just really buff and good at strength checks even if its not suited to their archetype. You could tweak the values of the point buy to make stats more scarce, but the loser there is primarily going to be someone like the monk

Let's go back to Fort/Ref/Will saves, only instead of being based on Con/Dex/Wis, let them be based on the middle value of three stats.

Fort could be the middle of Con, Dex, and Str. Ref could be Dex, Int, and Str. Will could be Cha, Con, and Wis.

So, if your stats were 16, 13, 12, 15, 17, 9 Your Fort would be: 13 (middle stat of 12,13,16). Your Ref would be 15 (middle stat of 13,15,16). Your Will would be 12 (middle stat of 9, 12, 17).

Ties would be that duplicate number (so, if you had 17, 13, 13 or 13, 13, 10, either way, your middle would be 13.

This would put a little more emphasis on well rounded characters as a benefit.

Regarding dropping Con altogether, I'm not against the idea. Just make sure it's dropped from everything. Base HD work just fine for determining total HP (with feat support) and it's not much math to strip out the same from monsters.

[Tanarii]

I agree with this. At a non-competitive table where the DM takes the party into consideration when planning the challenges (which is the game's default), the bounds are really really wide. I've got a ranger with 0 con mod; he's functional. I've got a cleric (same party) with +1 con mod who rolled really really poorly for HP--she's got something like 30 at level 6. They're functional, just have to be a bit more careful.
Con is a requirement, unless you've got the party size / adventuring environment to stay away from melee, and also not get hit by ranged attacks/AoEs.

It's possible to pull off but it means dramatically changing the base assumptions of the game. Running a Con 8-10 is roughly like running a primary 12 score. You're below base expectations.

[noob]

All that combining STR and CON would do is mean that everyone puts STRCON as their second or third most important stat, same as CON is now. Classes like melee fighters and barbarians would benefit a bit, but the biggest effect would be that loads of characters would be just really buff and good at strength checks even if its not suited to their archetype. You could tweak the values of the point buy to make stats more scarce, but the loser there is primarily going to be someone like the monk

The monk would be overall happy: they can now pump their damage and their defenses with the same stat and now have only 3 stats to worry about(str, dex, wis) instead of 4.

[Rukelnikov]

The monk would be overall happy: they can now pump their damage and their defenses with the same stat and now have only 3 stats to worry about(str, dex, wis) instead of 4.

That's exactly the same they have now with Dex, Con, Wis

[Kane0]

Let's go back to Fort/Ref/Will saves, only instead of being based on Con/Dex/Wis, let them be based on the middle value of three stats.

Fort could be the middle of Con, Dex, and Str. Ref could be Dex, Int, and Str. Will could be Cha, Con, and Wis.

So, if your stats were 16, 13, 12, 15, 17, 9 Your Fort would be: 13 (middle stat of 12,13,16). Your Ref would be 15 (middle stat of 13,15,16). Your Will would be 12 (middle stat of 9, 12, 17).

Ties would be that duplicate number (so, if you had 17, 13, 13 or 13, 13, 10, either way, your middle would be 13.

This would put a little more emphasis on well rounded characters as a benefit.

Regarding dropping Con altogether, I'm not against the idea. Just make sure it's dropped from everything. Base HD work just fine for determining total HP (with feat support) and it's not much math to strip out the same from monsters.

Fortitude, Reflex and Will are good, I like them. You could derive them from two scores each like NADs in 4e, that worked beautifully.

Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha need some work in my opinion. Perhaps shuffle them around to Might, Dexterity, Discipline, Wit, Intuition, Charisma. Work in progress.

[Snails]

Fortitude, Reflex and Will are good, I like them. You could derive them from two scores each like NADs in 4e, that worked beautifully.

Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha need some work in my opinion. Perhaps shuffle them around to Might, Dexterity, Discipline, Wit, Intuition, Charisma. Work in progress.

I do not really see having 6 saves as an improvement over 3. It is not terrible. But I do not see how it makes the game better. Some of the Str saves makes a degree of sense, but they could just be opposed by Athletics. If Str, Int Cha saves were actually important enough that anyone might get the Res feat for one of those, maybe I could be convinced...

[Pex]

Ermagerd 8 Con. With 16 Str. That's....ok nothing is unplayable, but that's bad. The 15 Wisdom is solid - play druid, and hide your 8 Con. Kinda the only way to go.

With the swap allowed trade the 15 for the 8 and get a stereotypical dumb fighter with 7 IN 8 WI. Trade the 8 for the 16 you can get a cleric/druid out of it.


Assume we ditch "in order". Is there anything specific you dislike? Like?

The average stat is likely to be higher than standard point buy. And it has variations extremely similar to dice rolling while keeping the swings within a box that avoids anything likely to be problematic.

MAD classes have a hard time with this. One good score great, but with everything else medium they're always playing catch-up in ability scores. Thread premise 14s are ok, but to choose a side on the issue it can't stay 14. A 12th level paladin with 14 ST 14 CO 14 CH is not a good idea, nor is (loin cloth) barbarian 14 ST 14 DX 14 CO or monk 14 DX 14 CO 14 WI. This presumes the player wants feats. Feats being technically optional aren't in reality. Non-feat games exist, but they aren't the norm.

On the lucky chances you get 16, 17, 18 to cover the MAD classes, accepting it takes racial modifiers to get there by having 15 in the cards, personal bias having more than one -1 modifier elsewhere is not worth the price. Third try I got a 16 and 15, but it cost a 7 and 8. Playing Variant Human I can have 16 16 8 8. I've played with players who don't mind the second 8. They purposely choose it with Point Buy. I do not. It's my preference. I'm fine with multiple 10s, but that's where I draw the line as a matter of personal preference. One 8 is ok. Two or more not. With Point Buy I can obviously avoid it, but I have purposely chosen to take an 8. With dice rolling I have to hope I don't get really unlucky, and/or the DM is not a stickler of no rerolls. Roll three arrays and choose one helps. I want no double 8s more than cheer I get an 18. I've turned down arrays that gave me an 18 but had two 8s in it after racial modifiers even.

TLDR: There's an inherent zero-sum game in this card method that is more strict than Point Buy that causes my optimizer eye to twitch. Getting rid of "in order" helps, but I'm more likely not to play a MAD class. I could play a SAD spellcaster easily enough and be happy.


12-14 Con is not a requirement.

Having a -ve score in Con does not make a character unplayable.

If you, personally, don't like having low Con/HP, then that's fine, but it does not break the game, the party or everyone's fun to have a character that is suceptible to effects based off Con saves or HP damage.

Does it have ramifications? Just as surely as having a character that's awful at Stealth does. Does that make Stealth proficiency or Dex 12-14 essential? Of course not. "Oh but you can work around low Stealth". Yeah, just like you can work around low Con/HP.

It bugs me when I read about or encounter players that consoder Con, or its lack of, being this super critical aspect of everyone having fun at the table because it's simply not the case.

A negative CON does matter because with so few hit points you drop faster than others. You drop one or two rounds sooner than otherwise meaning the party loses your actions. You require more healing resources percentage to keep you up. There's also the inherent player factor that when you are low on health you tend to be more cautious. You are more likely to move away from the combat area and do nothing to contribute. Even with a range attack you'd rather heal yourself or hide. You will spend more rounds drinking a healing a potion than others would across the campaign.

[False God]

I do not really see having 6 saves as an improvement over 3. It is not terrible. But I do not see how it makes the game better. Some of the Str saves makes a degree of sense, but they could just be opposed by Athletics. If Str, Int Cha saves were actually important enough that anyone might get the Res feat for one of those, maybe I could be convinced...

Could probably just ditch saves entirely. "Make an Athletics - Strength save." A "save" is just any check you make to oppose an effect.

[sithlordnergal]

12-14 Con is not a requirement.

Having a -ve score in Con does not make a character unplayable.

If you, personally, don't like having low Con/HP, then that's fine, but it does not break the game, the party or everyone's fun to have a character that is suceptible to effects based off Con saves or HP damage.

Does it have ramifications? Just as surely as having a character that's awful at Stealth does. Does that make Stealth proficiency or Dex 12-14 essential? Of course not. "Oh but you can work around low Stealth". Yeah, just like you can work around low Con/HP.

It bugs me when I read about or encounter players that consoder Con, or its lack of, being this super critical aspect of everyone having fun at the table because it's simply not the case.

I've had players try to play low Con characters, both with me as the DM and me as the player. I found two things happen:

First, the rest of the party had to put a lot more effort in keeping the person with low Con alive. They were knocked out and closer to death than anyone else. They took far more party resources, and often those resources were essentially wasted.

Second, they died. This was usually after the party got tired of babysitting them, or if we ran into an encounter that was actually difficult/deadly.

You also can't really compare low health to a low Stealthscore:

- First, Stealth is optional. Sure, remaining stealthy may be really good, but it is ultimately optional. Taking damage usually isn't optional.

- Second, you can very easily work around a Low Stealth stat. You can use things like Invisibility to give yourself advantage or Pass Without Trace to gain +10 to the roll. If the DM calls for a group check, then the low roll usually gets canceled out by the high roll. There really as many ways to play around having a low Con, and low HP outside of Aid, Temp HP, and staying out of combat. However, sources of Temp HP don't usually grant you a lot of Temp HP, and if the DM wants to attack you, you don't have many options to avoid being attacked.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Could probably just ditch saves entirely. "Make an Athletics - Strength save." A "save" is just any check you make to oppose an effect.

But then anything that buffs checks (including expertise) also buffs saves. Ouch.

[stoutstien]

Could probably just ditch saves entirely. "Make an Athletics - Strength save." A "save" is just any check you make to oppose an effect.

Eh saves and checks are, or should be, for two different concepts.

A save is to avoid the effects of something where a check is seeing if you can overcome or overpowered it. Challenges are when you have two opposing checks.
Are they consistent on this manner Heck no. This is why you end up with corner cases like wrathful smite being extremely powerful because checks are harder to buff but if you do buff them they are also silly powerful if applicable. like a dedicated grappler.

This issue is they have a faux core single resolution mechanic. It looks the same for everything but it's very different in reality.

[Ogre Mage]

12-14 Con is not a requirement.

Having a -ve score in Con does not make a character unplayable.

If you, personally, don't like having low Con/HP, then that's fine, but it does not break the game, the party or everyone's fun to have a character that is suceptible to effects based off Con saves or HP damage.

Does it have ramifications? Just as surely as having a character that's awful at Stealth does. Does that make Stealth proficiency or Dex 12-14 essential? Of course not. "Oh but you can work around low Stealth". Yeah, just like you can work around low Con/HP.

It bugs me when I read about or encounter players that consoder Con, or its lack of, being this super critical aspect of everyone having fun at the table because it's simply not the case.

As someone who plays clerics the most, I dislike low CON characters. They are frequently going down/almost going down and I have to spend resources and a valuable turn in combat healing them. With high CON characters this happens much less.

[animorte]

You also can't really compare low health to a low Stealthscore:

- First, Stealth is optional. Sure, remaining stealthy may be really good, but it is ultimately optional. Taking damage usually isn't optional.

- Second, you can very easily work around a Low Stealth stat. You can use things like Invisibility to give yourself advantage or Pass Without Trace to gain +10 to the roll.
Except the way you explain it, hit points and stealth are both equally accounted for by spells and features. Several features reduce the damage you take (resistance, uncanny dodge, evasion, temp hp). Several spells reduce damage or prevent being hit in the first place (shield, absorb elements, blade ward).


But then anything that buffs checks (including expertise) also buffs saves. Ouch.
So then one would require expertise in specific check? Say, I don't want to be hit by that fireball, I need the anti-AoE skill? We need more skills!

...
Anyway, this concern about Constitution. I know that casters generally like it to maintain concentration on spells, but does their lower health in general be one relevant? Even if they have the same Con score as everybody else, they will always have lower health anyway. I think it really only becomes a problem if you have front-liners with low Con, where it's much more noticeable. The people with lower health generally tend to avoid being in the fray anyway. Those that only have d8 generally have more tricks to avoid or reduce their overall damage (Monk, Cleric, Druid).

[OvisCaedo]

The smaller a class's hit die is, the bigger of a relative impact constitution has on their total HP. If you have a d6 hit die, taking an average* of 4 every level, having 14 con will give you 50% more health than having 10 con. That's pretty big. I think HP, and the con bonus to it, also just tend to scale much harder than things like skill checks; HP isn't a number that's subject to bounded accuracy.

also the majority of the game and its systems and balance are blatantly centered around combat, so direct combat stats are... probably going to be more generally important than stealth.


*because 5e decided to round that up

[Amechra]

MAD classes have a hard time with this.


Depends on the MAD class, honestly. Paladins and Barbarians would be more-or-less fine, while Monks would absolutely be screwed because Unarmored Defense was calibrated with really generous ability score generation rules in mind. If we go off the assumption that 12+Dex is the minimum AC that you get from "real" armor (because Studded Leather is so dang cheap), Monks only really get a bonus from pumping Wisdom if they have Wis 16+, which is... kinda high.

The solution is to just make Unarmored Defense 12+Dex+Wis. It's kinda surprising how much this actually fixes the Monk's MADness. Compare:




Starting Wis Bonus
Equivalent Light Armor (10)
Equivalent Heavy Armor (10)
Equivalent Light Armor (12)
Equivalent Heavy Armor (12)


+1
Leather
Ring Mail (16 Dex)
+1 Studded Leather
Ring Mail (12 Dex), Chain Mail (16 Dex)


+2
Studded Leather
Ring Mail (14 Dex)
+2 Studded Leather
Chain Mail (14 Dex), Splint (16 Dex)


+3
+1 Studded Leather
Ring Mail (12 Dex), Chain Mail (16 Dex)
+3 Studded Leather
Chain Mail (12 Dex), Splint (14 Dex), Plate (16 Dex)



If a Monk that maxes out Dexterity and Wisdom at character creation getting Plate equivalent AC is too much for people... that's the starting AC for any sword-and-board (heavy armor) Cleric, Fighter, or Paladin. On the other hand, a Monk that starts off with 14s in Dexterity and Wisdom (because of mediocre rolls or an ungenerous point-buy) still has a reasonable AC of 16.

[Theodoxus]

Fortitude, Reflex and Will are good, I like them. You could derive them from two scores each like NADs in 4e, that worked beautifully.

Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha need some work in my opinion. Perhaps shuffle them around to Might, Dexterity, Discipline, Wit, Intuition, Charisma. Work in progress.

I went with three mostly because I'm going with 12 stats in my revision: Accuracy, Balance, Brawn, Charm, Constitution, Dexterity, Memory, Perception, Presence, Reason, Strength, and Wisdom. (Mostly taken from Skills and Powers).

I also have 5 skills for each attribute. Accuracy and Brawn deal with weapon attacks (ranged and melee, respectively).




Skill
Attribute
Description


Acrobatics
Balance
Moving through occupied spaces


Animal Handling
Wisdom
Interaction with domestic animals


Bargaining
Charm
Obtaining a better deal


Beast Handling
Wisdom
interaction with wild animals


Bows
Accuracy
Weapon Group


Calligraphy
Dexterity
(Tool) pens


Cartography
Reason
(Tool) maps, sextant


Climbing
Strength
Climbing over obstacles


Crafting
Dexterity
(Tool) Cobbling, Cooking, etc.


Cryptography
Reason
Creating and solving cyphers


Deception
Presence
The art of lying


Disguise
Presence
(Tool) disguise kit


Driving
Strength
(Tool) Cart, wagon


Empathy
Wisdom
Insight


Engineering
Reason
Practical construction


Evaluation
Reason
Appraisal


Forgery
Dexterity
(Tool) Forgery kit


Gambling
Charm
Making money through games of chance


Grenades
Accuracy
Weapon Group


Improvised
Perception
Weapon Group


Initiative
Balance
Acting quickly in tense situations


Intimidation
Presence
Overpowering others with physical presense


Investigation
Charm
Finding answers by using people/communication


Jumping
Strength
Roll = distance jumped in feet.


Lances
Brawn
Weapon Group


Leadership
Presence
Guiding and directing others


Longarm
Accuracy
Weapon Group


Lore: Arcane
Memory
Knowing about arcame magic and the Astral Sea


Lore: Historical
Memory
Knowing the history of places


Lore: Natural
Memory
Knowing about the natural world and the Elemental Chaos


Lore: Occult
Memory
Knowing about the occult and the Inner Planes


Lore: Religious
Memory
Knowing about Dyzan, clerical sects, and the Outer Planes


Medicine
Perception
Healing non-lethal wounds


Might
Strength
Feats of strength


Navigation
Dexterity
(Tool) maps, sextant


One Handed Melee
Brawn
Weapon Group


Performance
Presence
Capacity to influence through song, dance or oration


Persuasion
Charm
How to win hearts and minds and influence people


Pistol
Accuracy
Weapon Group


Propelling
Constitution
(Tool) Self-powered propulsion: bicycle or rowboat


Research
Reason
Finding answers by using objects/books


Running
Balance
Moving quickly


Sabotage
Balance
(Tool) Sappers equipment


Sailing
Constitution
Knowing how to use the wind to propel a watercraft


Searching
Perception
Finding hidden or obscured objects


Seduction
Charm
Making winning moves in the game of love


Self-Discipline
Wisdom
Focusing your mental energy or controlling your base motives


Senses
Perception
Hearing, Looking, Smelling, etc.


Sleight of Hand
Dexterity
Used for hiding palmed objects and picking pockets


Smithing
Strength
(Tool) Blacksmithing, Armor crafting, Weaponsmithing


Stamina
Constitution
Enduring fatigue


Staves
Brawn
Weapon Group


Stealth
Balance
Sneaky sneaky


Survival
Wisdom
Knowing how to not die in the wilderness so easy


Swimming
Constitution
Moving through water quickly


Thrown
Accuracy
Weapon Group


Tolerance
Constitution
Drinking, Drugs, Poison


Tracking
Perception
How to follow a critter


Two-Handed Melee
Brawn
Weapon Group


Unarmed
Brawn
Weapon Group




Of course, since skill are used to determine your level, and there are so many of them, characters start with both a base amount from their starting class (called a lifestyle), their background, and their Reason modifier.

I like the idea of being good with a smaller stable of weapons than the 'simple/martial' divide. And really, the proficiency bonus is pretty small in the grand scale of things (for detractors who feel the need to eek out every +1 they can...) Unless you've got expertise in one. An assassin would be pretty freakin' deadly with expertise in Bows and One-Handed Melee, on top of using precision dice to add xd6 to their To Hit roll (or exchanging d6s to Sneak on a 1:1 basis).

[sithlordnergal]

Except the way you explain it, hit points and stealth are both equally accounted for by spells and features. Several features reduce the damage you take (resistance, uncanny dodge, evasion, temp hp). Several spells reduce damage or prevent being hit in the first place (shield, absorb elements, blade ward).

Mmm, maybe I did explain it poorly. Though the methods to improve a low ability score are far easier to access, and are used far more frequently, then the ones to improve HP. For skills you have things like Guidance, Class abilities like Bardic Inspiration, Racial abilities like the Hobgoblin's Saving Face, a multitude of spells that grant a buff to ability checks as a side grade to what they normally do, and I've found most DMs allow players to help each other if they're proficient with the skill in order to gain an easy Advantage. Oh, I forgot, you can also gain Expertise via Skill Expert.


HP buffs include Temp HP, being a Hill Dwarf, being a Draconic Sorcerer, Aid, Heroes Feast, and Tough. Now, you might think "Ah, just use Temp HP, but you don't actually get a lot of Temp HP from those sources. From what I've found there are two really, really ways of getting a lot of Temp HP. Tomb of Levistus and Armor of Agathys.

Tomb of Levistus gives the highest amount, with you gaining 10 Temp HP per Warlock level, with a minimum of 50 Temp HP since you have to be Warlock 5 to get it. Downsides are your speed is 0, you're Incapacitated, it goes away at the end of your next turn, and you can only use it once per Short/Long Rest.

Armor of Agathys gives you 5 Temp HP, and that amount increases for every slot above 1st level that you use. Its the second best source of Temp HP. I can't really knock it outside of the fact that 5 Temp HP isn't actually all that much. But that's an issue with the other sources of Temp HP too.


When you look at the two, and how many ways there are to buff one or the other, you'll find that HP can be buffed, but its much harder to do.

[JellyPooga]

A negative CON does matter...

Who said it doesn't? Of course it matters, it's just that it's only another choice in your character build that matters as much or as little as any other, both on a personal and a party-wide level.

If you have low Dex, you'll tend to act later in the round, often going after monsters that chew up the party. Damage that *you* could have prevented *if only* you had higher Initiative.

Low Int means low "lore" skills, which means you aren't getting critical information that puts the party on the right track. How very dare you compromise the party that way?

Why aren't you carrying your share of the party loot or able to pull your mates out of a pit? Oh yeah, you dumped Strength. Shame about the green slime down there slowly dissolving them. Your choice killed them.

etc. etc. I'm being intentionally facetious and of course there are work-arounds for all of them but the point stands. Any choice you make about your character is going to matter to the party and low Con is one of many. Some are going to matter more than others, depending on the game, but none of them are so critical that they're automatic deal-breakers.

[Pex]

Who said it doesn't? Of course it matters, it's just that it's only another choice in your character build that matters as much or as little as any other, both on a personal and a party-wide level.

If you have low Dex, you'll tend to act later in the round, often going after monsters that chew up the party. Damage that *you* could have prevented *if only* you had higher Initiative.

Low Int means low "lore" skills, which means you aren't getting critical information that puts the party on the right track. How very dare you compromise the party that way?

Why aren't you carrying your share of the party loot or able to pull your mates out of a pit? Oh yeah, you dumped Strength. Shame about the green slime down there slowly dissolving them. Your choice killed them.

etc. etc. I'm being intentionally facetious and of course there are work-arounds for all of them but the point stands. Any choice you make about your character is going to matter to the party and low Con is one of many. Some are going to matter more than others, depending on the game, but none of them are so critical that they're automatic deal-breakers.

Some DMs are sticklers for encumbrance, but even so you have enough ST to carry what your character needs. High ST characters like carrying the heavy loot. It reinforces the fantasy of being the Big Strong Guy. In combat having low ST means you use another ability score as your main attack. The party does not suffer when you have low ST.

Some players value initiative highly. They will pump DX. Even with a high initiative luck happens and you can still go last. Not going first in initiative is not a death knell. Sometimes it helps to know what the bad guy did before you do your turn. Sometimes it doesn't matter. Warriors with low DX wear heavy armor. Spellcasters who aren't clerics are squishy anyway, AC 10 or AC 12 won't matter. They use spells and/or cover to avoid getting hit. The party does not suffer when you have low DX.

If the party absolutely needs to know information for the adventure to continue they will learn it. If knowing information provides aid or an edge to make informed decisions, the smart guy can make the roll. He'll like that. He wants to be Mr. Know-It-All. The party does not suffer when you have low IN.

There are lots of WI saves. If you fail a WI it can suck real bad. Unfortunately not everyone is proficient in WI saves. Do not have a low WI score. Personal preference just don't have an 8 in it. 10 if you must, 12 if you can afford it when WI is not a prime score for your class. Only because you take damage a lot more often than you need to make a WI save do I place a higher value on CO. The party does not suffer much if you have a low WI but you will.

Everyone gets to talk to NPCs. Everyone gets to have conversations. Not all conversations require a roll. Talky-Talky is part of roleplaying, part of playing the game. The Face of the party can do the talking when it's important to convince an NPC of doing something. The party does not suffer when you have a low CH. The party will suffer if you having an 8 convinces you to be a donkey cavity to disrupt conversations, parleys, talky-talky bits to make the situation worse. That's not the fault of having a low CH. That's the fault of you the player being a donkey cavity. Low CH only means you lack the ability to convince people. Being a donkey cavity is player choice, not game choice.