D&D 5E Ability Scores Are Different Now?

[Pickles JG]

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?

It's exactly the same as 4e up to level 12, if you are not a fighter. If you start at 16 you will have better accuracy (or save DCs) & do more damage, assuming you usually hit on a 9 with a 14 (ir starting AC about 13 like the orc) it is much the same. The +3 damage is not as much as the +5 but the generally lower numbers mean the differences are more significant.

14 or 15 will mean you lag one behind until level 12 when you become a feat behind (or the high stat guy catches up in secondary stats). This is of course outside the life of most campaigns.

13 or less will mean you are noticeably less effective than someone with a 16 but may be able to be more versatile with better secondary stats (though except CON these are less directly relevant than in 4e where every class can leverage one or two secondaries.

I also expect that we will see far more 16s in 5e than 20s in 4e so the 13s will be more obviously behind.

That said it does not matter so much for secondary spell casting if you are not attacking - (it effects healing but not most buffs or utilities) so you can multi-class quite effectively I feel & hybrids like rangers will not need huge casting stats.

I do like the cap though - the removal of stat pressure after level 12 at the latest will give a much better feel to the game. You could stop at 18 & not be crippled & have more options for later. Starting at 16 & bumping it once will leave you a point behind the top people but that's like being 18 not 20 in 4e so acceptable.

Of course being more rounded may be better in a game that has a wide scope where many skills are used, but it will not help your "basic" combat effectiveness.

 

[jgsugden]

Getting to a 20 in the prime stat (and for many classes a secondary stat) is going to be a priority for optimizers. It has a huge impact on optimization. The ability to raise stats up to 20 rather easily - usually by level 4 or 6 (if not 1), and the 20 cap will minimize the differentiation between characters, but it will be a high priority for all PCs attempting to be at or near the top of the efficiency curve to get that maxed score (or scores).

 

[fanboy2000]

Well, with 20 cap and a point buy system that won't let buy anything higher than a 15, I think you're right. They're very different from 3.x and 4e ability scores.

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).

I think you're right. Right now a +5 to hit (+3 from stat +2 from proficiency) does a good job at first level. Particularly tough opponents have a 16 AC at this point, but many other lower CR monsters have ACs where you're hitting more than half the time.

If you started with a 20 in your prime stat, say via rolling, you'd never be able to increase it. You'd start off great, but you're only attack increases would come from proficiency increases and class features, not from pumping up your stat. This might make you a more well-rounded character because you'd be forced to increase other stats or take feats. Which is an interesting consequence.

 

[Paraxis]

I don't think much has changed, you still have dump stats for every class and prime scores. Sure every ability is used for saves but three of them are hardly ever used, so if you have no need to use strength, intelligence, or charisma for your primary stat you can just ignore them for the most part.

I would never build a character with less than a 16 in his primary ability score at level 1, this has been true for the past 25+ years and this edition doesn't change that fact.

All my opinion of course as is pretty much everything ever written in any forum ever.

 

[Gadget]

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.

I don't think this particular example applies in 5e. If you are not proficient (or have some magic item help) in WIS save, you're pretty much gonna fail that save, regardless of your WIS score, especially at higher levels. Yes a high WIS score will help some, but it seems proficiency bonus is what really matters with saves.

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.

I hope this is case, but it really does depend on the monster math. If bumping your stat is the difference between hitting on a 6 or a 7, then yeah, people might not put that much emphasis on maxing out stats. But if it means hitting on a 15 vs a 16, people are going to want to pump that stat as high as possible. I think it will be a fine line to walk, and even if they mostly "get it right" there will always be the occasional dramatic conflict against that super tough high-AC opponent that is just going to favor the stat booster. I don't see how stat pumping will not allow one to 'swing outside their weight class' at least occasionally. I suppose how much this will matter depends on how much the DM throws higher level/tougher monsters at the party.

 

[doctorhook]

I agree with KM: ability scores have changed since 4E, and for the better. I do not buy into the argument that an unmaxed primary stat is the sign of a crippled character in 5E.

 

[Branduil]

I don't think this particular example applies in 5e. If you are not proficient (or have some magic item help) in WIS save, you're pretty much gonna fail that save, regardless of your WIS score, especially at higher levels. Yes a high WIS score will help some, but it seems proficiency bonus is what really matters with saves.

I hope this is case, but it really does depend on the monster math. If bumping your stat is the difference between hitting on a 6 or a 7, then yeah, people might not put that much emphasis on maxing out stats. But if it means hitting on a 15 vs a 16, people are going to want to pump that stat as high as possible. I think it will be a fine line to walk, and even if they mostly "get it right" there will always be the occasional dramatic conflict against that super tough high-AC opponent that is just going to favor the stat booster. I don't see how stat pumping will not allow one to 'swing outside their weight class' at least occasionally. I suppose how much this will matter depends on how much the DM throws higher level/tougher monsters at the party.

I don't think there are going to be very many monsters that you need a 16 to hit.

 

[Stuntman]

I can see people wanting to have a high primary stat. Even though the cap is 20 for any stat, players may want to maximise their primary stat and/or get some feats. With a high primary stat at the start, I feel I have the flexibility to get an early feat if I wanted to. If my primary stat isn't that high, I would feel that I must bump up my stat at level 4. In the long running campaigns that I have played, level 7 was the highest I have ever reached. I played an 8th level character once and that was a one shot game.

 

[pemerton]

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.

Doesn't that mean you woild have to start with an 18? Which seems pretty close to "as high as possible". In my 4e game, the dwarf fighter started with 16 STR, the wizard started with 20 INT, and the others started with 18s.

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.

I think it's more the other way round:

A 9th level wizard with +4 prof and 20 INT sets a save DC of 17. With a middling WIS score, the chance of saving (assuming no proficiency) is low (20%). With an 18 WIS score the chance of saving doubles (to 40%) but is still less than 50:50.

In other words, boosting low scores in stats in which a character has no proficiency does not yield a very good payoff in term of save success rates.

 

[Ashkelon]

I agree with KM: ability scores have changed since 4E, and for the better. I do not buy into the argument that an unmaxed primary stat is the sign of a crippled character in 5E.

All else being equal, a 16 Str fighter will deal 40% less damage than a 20 Str fighter. That is much more significant than a similar Strength difference in 4e.

The change is actually for the worse. A maxed stat is far more important in 5e than it was in 4e.