D&D 5E Ability Scores Are Different Now?

[I'm A Banana]

I mean, they're CALLED the same thing, and they still basically represent the same things, but my limited experience with 5e so far tells me they're being used in a very different way.

Mostly, that it feels like they don't have to be very high any more to be effective.

In 4e, not maxing out your High Stat at first level was basically operating at a penalty since almost everything you would do flowed through that stat. In 3e, you not only needed an 18+ in your main stat to start with, you needed to KEEP increasing it, using ability-score boosting items to continue to meet the rising DC's and AC's and saving throws. In 2e or 1e, I still remember the "If you're not getting an XP bonus from your Prime Requisite, just roll again" house rule.

I'm sure there's varying degrees of emphasis placed on other ability scores at various tables at any given e, but 5e seems to emphasize a breadth in ability scores that is a little new for D&D.

Like, the hard cap at 20! It feels like there's a LOT less drive to start off with as high a score as possible if you're going to max out by your first ability score bump. And the standard array is so low and the bumps are only +1 so I feel like a 15 or even a 14 or a 13 in my "main stat" might be acceptable, at least for the first few levels, especially if it means shoring up one of my nonproficient saving throws or I've got some weird multiclass shenanigans in store.

This might just be all in my head, though. What do you think? Does 5e look like it's generally cooler with lower numbers? How far could it go? Could I be "Captain 3e Commoner" and have 10's accross the board and do fine?

 

[TerraDave]

I think its very much an intentional design feature to get off the ability score treadmill of the last few editions.

It gets you closer to pre 3E, with the luxury of being able to still increase score as needed without depending solely on the generosity of the DM or their adventure or treasure tables.

Also makes it possible to get the sort of stats that cool NPCs would have in Dragon magazine way back when. I think thats the real goal.

 

[Crothian]

That certainly looks like what they are trying to do but it will be interesting if the players switch their mindset that way.

 

[n00bdragon]

To be honest I think this is all in your head. Starting with as high a score as possible is still desirable because most the things you do will key off of that ability. The only difference now is that once you max out your primary score you receive vastly diminishing returns with each successive ability up.

 

[Andor]

I think they have been deemphasized quite a bit, but both because of reduced criticality and because you'll have plenty of high scores anyway.

Remember that a Human fighter (playing by default rules, so no feats) is going to be adding 20 (!) points to his starting stats over 20 levels. (6 from being human and 14 from level/class based bumps. So Joe Commoner can still retire with his str score rivaling that of heroes of legend. Which is fair enough as by 20th level he has become a hero of legend.

So yes, I think you can destress about starting stat scores in 5e compared to most earlier editions, but they do matter. A +1 to hit and damage adds up over time.

 

[Remathilis]

I mean, they're CALLED the same thing, and they still basically represent the same things, but my limited experience with 5e so far tells me they're being used in a very different way.

Mostly, that it feels like they don't have to be very high any more to be effective.

In 4e, not maxing out your High Stat at first level was basically operating at a penalty since almost everything you would do flowed through that stat. In 3e, you not only needed an 18+ in your main stat to start with, you needed to KEEP increasing it, using ability-score boosting items to continue to meet the rising DC's and AC's and saving throws. In 2e or 1e, I still remember the "If you're not getting an XP bonus from your Prime Requisite, just roll again" house rule.

I'm sure there's varying degrees of emphasis placed on other ability scores at various tables at any given e, but 5e seems to emphasize a breadth in ability scores that is a little new for D&D.

Like, the hard cap at 20! It feels like there's a LOT less drive to start off with as high a score as possible if you're going to max out by your first ability score bump. And the standard array is so low and the bumps are only +1 so I feel like a 15 or even a 14 or a 13 in my "main stat" might be acceptable, at least for the first few levels, especially if it means shoring up one of my nonproficient saving throws or I've got some weird multiclass shenanigans in store.

This might just be all in my head, though. What do you think? Does 5e look like it's generally cooler with lower numbers? How far could it go? Could I be "Captain 3e Commoner" and have 10's accross the board and do fine?

In my opinion, 5e scores resemble BECMI than AD&D scores.

BECMI scores, while going 3-18, like AD&D, were a lot more forgiving. The max bonus from them was +3/-3, bonuses started at 13 (vs AD&D's 15), and you could get partial XP bonus for a 13 (+5%). Additionally, they didn't affect your casting ability (at all) so a wizard with a 9 and a 17 learned spells the same way, had the same amount known, and could reach 9th level spells if they made it that high. All that separated them was +10% XP and +3 languages.

I think 5e is getting back to that by tying less class abilities to ability scores. That and bounded accuracy makes this the first game in a long time were a score below 16 seems acceptable for your prime stat. I hope that holds.

 

[Vael]

I don't know if they've been deemphasized, so much as upgrading them is no longer a no-brainer, now that they're competing with feats. I think everyone is going to want to get that 20 in their primary stat ... but can you deal with a 18 when there's this sweet feat that'll bolster your character ... or even just buffing your weaker ability scores?

 

[Shiroiken]

What I've noticed, is that 16 is the new 18. You want to start with an 18, but starting with a 16 is perfectly fine. Even a 14 in an attack Score (assuming that's not your prime score) is completely workable. In fact, if the rumors of the Feats is any indication, I suspect most people will use their first Increase for a Feat, then consider raising Ability Scores.

 

[I'm A Banana]

To be honest I think this is all in your head. Starting with as high a score as possible is still desirable because most the things you do will key off of that ability. The only difference now is that once you max out your primary score you receive vastly diminishing returns with each successive ability up.

I think the idea I'm working with isn't that the high score isn't desirable, it's just not as valuable.

It's like, in 3e, if you had a middling WIS score, you were gonna fail your Will saves. Bam. Done. It could be 8, it could be 12, it could be 14, that Will DC is going to be higher than your middling score can hit.

In 5e, I'm getting the impression that if I have a middling WIS score, I still have a good chance to make a WIS save.

Similarly, if I have a middling STR or a middling DEX, I still am OK at making melee attacks or ranged attacks.

It's like, the differences between high and low scores in 3e and 4e were HUGE. The differences here seem to be a lot smaller. "More forgiving." They didn't remove all variation, but it feels like they narrowed the spread.

BECMI scores, while going 3-18, like AD&D, were a lot more forgiving. The max bonus from them was +3/-3, bonuses started at 13 (vs AD&D's 15), and you could get partial XP bonus for a 13 (+5%). Additionally, they didn't affect your casting ability (at all) so a wizard with a 9 and a 17 learned spells the same way, had the same amount known, and could reach 9th level spells if they made it that high. All that separated them was +10% XP and +3 languages.

Yeah, it's certainly a bigger effect than that, but it feels of a similar sort. Like maybe those 4 points of attack bonus don't usually matter that much unless you're already pushing at the very edge of what you can hit?

 

[Remathilis]

Yeah, it's certainly a bigger effect than that, but it feels of a similar sort. Like maybe those 4 points of attack bonus don't usually matter that much unless you're already pushing at the very edge of what you can hit?

That will depend on the monster math. If they remain like in the Basic set, I wager it won't require an 18+ like 4e's early math (and 3e's later math).