D&D 5E Great scores weak subclass; strong subclass so-so scores

[ECMO3]

so you got great stats randomly, meaning you probably have the best stats of the party. Then you are going to compound that difference by building a power-gamer's PC.

People rolling great stats building suboptimal characters is a great way to "even out" the party and remove some of the sting of rolling bad stats and ensure intra-party imbalance. Maybe I'm missing your point, but it seems like what you are proposing would make things worse, not better...

I think I agree with this some.

Usually I have a thematic idea in mind already and good stats let you play a weak class without suffering the same kind of debilitation. However if I did not want to play that weak class/subclass/race, I would not want it regardless of my stats.

I also don't see evening out as much of a problem in the games I play. Most players are happier when their colleagues are powerful. What I mean if you look at most tables and you are giving the option of a new player showing up with an average character or an awesome character, most tables would rather have the latter.

 

[Ancalagon]

The fun of rolling stats is to allow exceptional character.
If the table want to even out characters point buy already do the job.

And a monk who's just as "good" as a paladin isn't exceptional?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I wasted my two nearly all 16 sets on an aasimar fighter and a dwarven wizard.
Both games were sadly stopped quite early so no subclass choice. But yeah, I think goods stats should be used to play unusual concepts, because optimizing is needless there.

On the other hand, my character with 13 as the highest rolled stat became a variant human(ritual caster) rogue(arcane trickster)/bard(swords)/dine sould sorcerer. My stats were so bad anyway, that I started with a relatively stat independant class/subclass and feat and just went with the story whenever leveling up. That worked pretty well.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The fun of rolling stats is to allow exceptional character.
If the table want to even out characters point buy already do the job.

One way to look at it. Actually in 5e, I don't really see stats being that important anyway. Best you can do is add a few points of constitution and raise your main stats by 2 points or so compared to an average character. If your definition of exceptional is having 10% more hp, making saves 5% more often, hitting 5% more often and enemies making saves 5% less, then go for it.
I think characters are exceptional if they use those stats for unusual combinations.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Personally, I would suggest rather than reducing the sheer amount of points, lower the PB ceiling if someone wants to play a "powerful" subclass.

That is, perhaps the best you can manage is a +2 if you're a Bladesinger Wizard. Suddenly all those Int-based features are a lot less dramatic.

Conversely, if someone wants to play an original-flavor Beast Master Ranger? Give them extra point-buy points and let their point buy max be 17, not 15.

 

[Horwath]

The fun of rolling stats is to allow exceptional character.
If the table want to even out characters point buy already do the job.

you can do that by increasing point buy number.

then all can have that experience and not have one GMO human and on another end you have someone that is a candidate for a disability check.

 

[Horwath]

Personally, I would suggest rather than reducing the sheer amount of points, lower the PB ceiling if someone wants to play a "powerful" subclass.

That is, perhaps the best you can manage is a +2 if you're a Bladesinger Wizard. Suddenly all those Int-based features are a lot less dramatic.

Conversely, if someone wants to play an original-flavor Beast Master Ranger? Give them extra point-buy points and let their point buy max be 17, not 15.

I would rather homebrew entire PHB than to admit that only thing that can balance different (sub)classes is punishing players with ability penalties for playing certain character concepts.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I would rather homebrew entire PHB than to admit that only thing that can balance different (sub)classes is punishing players with ability penalties for playing certain character concepts.

I thought that was the whole point of the thread topic. Applying ability score penalties/rewards for playing some subclasses and not others.

 

[ECMO3]

And a monk who's just as "good" as a paladin isn't exceptional?

At high level a Monk with a good subclass is generally better than a Paladin assuming equal and average statistics. A Monk is also generally better than a Paldin at level 1 and 2.