D&D 5E Is the stat system biased against front-liners?

[Horwath]

We like the random. YOU might get a 5 or 6 stat lol.

yes you might.

but you could also buy 6 stat for -2 pts if it fits you character theme.

if you want to go high you could buy 16 for 12pts, 17 for 15pts and 18 for 19pts.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Pallies and barbies for example really do want 3 really high scores that aren't possible with point buy.

I think this statement is far more applicable to the last few editions of the game. Not so much anymore. Going into 5e, with older edition baggage and expectations, can have a substantial impact on how one perceives it.

Or, perhaps, a bit more clarification is in order? What three scores do you consider necessary for the paladin to have "really high"? Same for barbarian? And what do you consider "really high scores that aren't possible with point buy"?

 

[n00b f00]

Well I agree that MAD isn't as big of a deal in 5e. But my point is that a barbarian gets significantly more value out of having say strength, dexterity, and constitution maxed out than a fighter would due to how AC worcs for them.

Paladins want high charisma so their extra spell smites and such stick, and their auras have a nice bonus. They're front liners so they need a good con and they have no proficiency in con saves. They want a maxed attack score because duh, almost all their interaction with enemies start with them hitting them hard. If they are a strength paladin, they still don't want a negative dex score, no one wants that.

It's not necessary for them to get more points at all, they work fine with point buy, buy if you're rolling for stats and you score real high, you'll get more value from the spare points with them then say a moon druid or archer rogue.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Well I agree that MAD isn't as big of a deal in 5e.

Heck, thanks to BA, even ONOHAS (Only Needs One High Ability Score) isn't a thing, really. A character is perfectly viable with a 10-14 stat range across the board (final after racial mods).

But my point is that a barbarian gets significantly more value out of having say strength, dexterity, and constitution maxed out than a fighter would due to how AC worcs for them.

But again, buzz words like "maxed out" lead me to believe there may be previous edition baggage. And even ignoring that, you are only focusing on one pillar of play. A barbarian also really benefit greatly from Wisdom (perception, survival/tracking, saves, etc.) and Charisma (don't you want to be intimidating as a big barbarian?).

Paladins want high charisma so their extra spell smites and such stick, and their auras have a nice bonus. They're front liners so they need a good con and they have no proficiency in con saves. They want a maxed attack score because duh, almost all their interaction with enemies start with them hitting them hard. If they are a strength paladin, they still don't want a negative dex score, no one wants that.

Everyone benefits from Con and a high "attack score", so that's not unique to paladins. And no one wants a negative Dex. Again, not unique to paladins.

It's not necessary for them to get more points at all, they work fine with point buy, buy if you're rolling for stats and you score real high, you'll get more value from the spare points with them then say a moon druid or archer rogue.

"More value" is so ephemeral. Any character can find huge benefit from a high score in any stat. If you choose to take advantage of that score.

You also never answered what you consider "really high scores that aren't possible with point buy".

 

[n00b f00]

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I'm discussing this from a combat optimization perspective. When I said really high, and then later referred to maxing a score. I meant, ideally multiple class relevant stats to 20.

Barbarians benefit from wisdom and charisma and intelligence. But they are not as combat relevant as their physical stats.

Everyone benefits from having a high con and a high attack stat, but con is more important for front liners. And having say a 20 in strength is less important for a cleric than a paladin. Most cleric abilities aren't built around hitting things. A 14 attack score paladin would be pretty suboptimal compared to a 20. Some classes don't really need high physical attack scores. Also some gish builds don't feel as strapped for points. EKs for example can dump intellect and still be effective. Paladins can't.

Now it's clear that we are discussing the game from different perspectives. I'm talking about building somewhat combat optimized characters with point buy. You're talking about playing characters that make more narrative sense and aren't as focused on fighting. Is every paladin really a charming buffoon? I would say regrettably yes, they can't spare points for RP flavor. You would say (perhaps) no, of course they aren't all that way it makes no narrative sense. Some are really smart and only really strong, not duper strong. That's totally fine. I don't mean to argue a difference in philosophy, I'm just saying I wished point buy facilitated optimization and flavor a little more.

 

[procproc]

Everyone benefits from having a high con and a high attack stat, but con is more important for front liners.

I know this is the conventional wisdom, but I'm not really sure it's true.

In practice, a lot of the encounters we've had in 5e (and I say this both running and playing) involve enough bodies that there's frequently a kind of 'scrum' where everyone's mixed together. 5e doesn't implement the same kind of stickiness that 4e (among others) had, so while the lion's share of the baddies usually pile up on the front-liners, the other characters pretty much invariably end up engaging some as well, and the wizard doesn't have the AC or hp of the fighter.

Somewhat ironically, I think the fighter often ends up taking *less* damage than anyone in the rest of the party, due to his high AC (plate + shield + ring of protection +1), even though he's frequently tanking 3 attackers while everyone else is tanking 1.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[RCanine]

I think it's less a matter of being biased against "front-liners" as it is being biased toward caster-types--that may be me splitting hairs, but I really do mean that. That is, I think the balancing act forced by having to consider three physical stats for different purposes is probably a good thing in the long run, and that it is the SAD-ness of pure-caster classes that makes them a problem.

This is an awesome analysis and I agree 100%. Another great solution to this problem is how stats work in Pillars of Eternity: it replaces physical stats with more abstract ones that would be useful to any class, e.g. "Might" is how all classes increase damage, "Intellect" increase AoE abilities and condition durations (which all classes have).

There's a second thing, however, beyond simply stats: it's utility. SAD casters often have primary stats that increase useful skills, and utility spells that cover their physical weakness to some extent. So that they cover the three pillars of the game better:

Caster
Combat: I have spells that do damage from a distance where I'm safe
Exploration: I'm good with skills that help me understand my environment, and I have utility spells to avoid some hard physical work.
Interaction: My primary combat stat also makes me good at talking and/or listening.

... plus I have free stat budget dabbling in several useful skills.

Melee
Combat: I walk up to the biggest thing and stab it, then it stabs me
Exploration: I'm good at getting close to things. If they're alive, I stab them.
Interaction: I just get bored and start stabbing things.

..I generally need three or four stats to stay effective in combat.

 

[Zardnaar]

Heck, thanks to BA, even ONOHAS (Only Needs One High Ability Score) isn't a thing, really. A character is perfectly viable with a 10-14 stat range across the board (final after racial mods).


But again, buzz words like "maxed out" lead me to believe there may be previous edition baggage. And even ignoring that, you are only focusing on one pillar of play. A barbarian also really benefit greatly from Wisdom (perception, survival/tracking, saves, etc.) and Charisma (don't you want to be intimidating as a big barbarian?).


Everyone benefits from Con and a high "attack score", so that's not unique to paladins. And no one wants a negative Dex. Again, not unique to paladins.


"More value" is so ephemeral. Any character can find huge benefit from a high score in any stat. If you choose to take advantage of that score.

You also never answered what you consider "really high scores that aren't possible with point buy".

I think the thing is Paladins are almost always half elves or humans from what I have seen so you can start the game with 2 16s and a 14 or a 16, two 14's and a feat. SOme classes like a monk and gish are a bit more MAD than the classic 4. You can still make them work but you will see a lot of the same races get used over and over again because of point buy ( we do not use it).

 

[RCanine]

Wizards want high int, con, dex
Druids want high wis, con, dex
Clerics want high wis, con
Fighters want high str and con or high dex and con
Paladins want high str, con, cha, or high dex, con, cha
Barbarians want high str, con, dex
Rogues want high dex and con
Monks want high dex, wis, con

Almost every class wants 3 high stats except fighters and rogues.

So no, I'd say the stat system is actually more biased toward casters than front liners.

This a bit of an oversimplification; it's like first-world want versus third-world want. Melee combatants want high Dex, Wis and Con regardless of class because they're usually neck-deep in bad guys and need offense as well as balanced saving throws.

Ranged casters want high con because on the off-chance a caster enemy gets a fireball off before he's alpha-striked down, it's nice to have some extra HP for padding.