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

[ChrisCarlson]

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I'm discussing this from a combat optimization perspective.

Isolating one-third of the game's focus seems a flawed perspective when discussing what characters need/want. But okay.

When I said really high, and then later referred to maxing a score. I meant, ideally multiple class relevant stats to 20.

So end-game level characters...

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

Again, what about the other two-thirds of the game?

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

I could argue Con is more important to full casters. Due not only to concentration, but because a Con bonus is a greater percentage increase to their HPs as a result of their having small HD.

And having say a 20 in strength is less important for a cleric than a paladin.

Only when you presuppose the kind of cleric and the kind of paladin.

Most cleric abilities aren't built around hitting things. A 14 attack score paladin would be pretty suboptimal compared to a 20.

Your use of "suboptimal" has me here. The way you are using it, a 14 in any score is suboptimal to a 20. For any character.

Some classes don't really need high physical attack scores.

Pretty obvious. Or, more specifically, some class builds do not use physical attack scores in general. But that doesn't mean they don't benefit from having them. As everyone would.

Also some gish builds don't feel as strapped for points. EKs for example can dump intellect and still be effective. Paladins can't.

This is not correct, based on my experiences with 5e thus far. Or maybe I'm just misunderstanding your point. Please elaborate.

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.

I've addressed that already as well (and beyond into other aspects of play). No, you do not need to max out your various "primary" combat stats to be effective. Not even close.

You're talking about playing characters that make more narrative sense and aren't as focused on fighting.

No, again, I'm talking about both issues. Because they are related. Once one stops looking at 5e though previous edition lenses, they will find the system does not need them to have 20s for combat. Which means more room to spread their character out to enjoy the other two-thirds of the game.

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.

Most aren't, IMX.

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.

I wish people would stop trying to cram square pegs (3e/4e optimization) into round holes (5e) and then complaining that they can't make good characters.

I offer an experiment. Make a paladin or barbarian with no final score above a 14. Play it for a few levels. See how it goes. I'd be surprised if you weren't surprised at how much more forgiving 5e is on stat scores.

 

[Quartz]

Perhaps the requirement for high CON to withstand attacks could be partly ameliorated by changing the way fixed HP are granted? Instead of using average HP, where a wizard gets 3 HP / level and a fighter 5 HP / level - a difference of a mere 2 HP / level - we could use Max (HD) minus a number? If that number were 3, wizards would still get 3 HP / level but fighters would get 7. That's a more visible 4 HP per level difference. If you use Max (HD) - 2, you get figures of 4 and 8 respectively, and it would mean that the Toughness feat simply granted max HP per level.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

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.

Curious. Are you saying those two for paladin more so than other classes? I see a lot of human and half-elf everything. Not sure that implies anything about paladins. More about human and half-elf as really good race choices in general.

SOme classes like a monk and gish are a bit more MAD than the classic 4.

First, gish isn't a class. Second, I disagree about the whole "MAD" thing on its face. More how? What classic 4 class doesn't benefit greatly from having at least three high ability scores?

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).

If everyone played D&D the way you do, perhaps. But that is very much not the case. Also, your placing so much focus on a race's stat bumps, over the various other racial traits and benefits, seems myopic and corner-case. And that's leaving out "RP/concept" reasons. Cuz that ain't nuthin' neither.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I guess gaming tables vary. By far the most paladins we've seen are humans. Then dragonborn, and goliath after that.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

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.

I'm just saying I wished point buy facilitated optimization and flavor a little more.

Isn't the entire point of optimisation making the best use out of the available resources? If demanding more resources is part of optimisation, then any amount of points short of maxing out all of your stats is suboptimal.

As to flavour, if you need more points than everyone else in order to achieve your character's concept, you need to talk to your DM. She may allow you to trade out other racial or class features for more points.

The level of optimisation (ie. min/maxing) of a character is separate from the level of resources it has. It is by definition the way that it used those resources. You can heavily optimise a standard array character and not optimise a legendary-level points build. I think that you may be referring to character power when you speak of optimisation.

Having said that, are there any stat minimums that are required by specific classes to be viable?

 

[n00b f00]

TLDR some classesand concepts are more MAD than others. But not unbearably so. It's not a big deal.

Con is important for casters, it's a good argument I've seen before. Yet I feel less comfortable with a 14 con on a paladin than a wizard. I guess I just, perhaps wrongly, assume the paladin will be barfed on more by con save abilities.

I'm not only interested in min maxing. I like finding what I think are fun combos that still work. Few of my characters are variant pole arm masters humans, but most of them are con proficient. I don't have 8s in my primary class stat, but I will dip into monk with a ranger to have a more pulp hero feel.

But some classes are more stat hungry. Compare eldritch knight to paladin. EK is already con proficient, EK gets more ASIs, EK spells known is based off level and not int mod. Many of the spells EKs use require no saves or rolls. Absorb elements, shield, and other buffs do not require int, neither do melee based cantrips. If they want to pump int, which they have more points for, they can then drop some fireballs or burning hands to some effect on occasion. Nice but not vital. With paladins cha mod adds to spells prepared, saves from their aura, number of divine sense uses, the saved for their extra smites, their channel divinity saves. It's a more difficult decision to pump cha over a feat or something else with paladins than it is with an EK or most classes. Just because how they are designed.

Now paladins are generally considered to be extremely strong and EKs aren't. I'm also sure I'd enjoy playing in a game with 12 as my top stat as any class. I still enjoy tinkering with classes like paladins on paper with point buy.

But the point remains that from a mechanical perspective some classes are a little more MAD than others. An archer based rogue has more than enough points to increase their primary stats and play around with some extra points, whether that's to get a really high perspective score, or just bump int to RP a part time university professor. If you're interested in having a min maxed/optimized/strong/whatever character, some builds just have more mechanical and RP diversity.

I don't think it's a large failing of the system, or honestly a big deal personally. It's certainly a much smaller one than in previous editions and for the better. But I do think some classes are more MAD than others. Which is what I thought the conversation was about, not our personal feelings about power gaming.

Also when it comes to what term to use, optimization or power level or whatever. I'm really not sure. What I was referring to was that between hard caps, caps at char gen, the number of ASIs and the point buy system. It's pretty easy to get what you ultimately want for any class. It's just with some it's easier to spend a few extra points raising cha to 14 on your ranger mostly for flavor. I'm not sure if you'd refer to that as raising the power level or being easier to min max and staying thematic or what. But it's an issue easily remedied with rolling or using a 32 point buy, which others have suggested earlier in relation to this, some would say unimportant , quirk.

 

[Zardnaar]

Curious. Are you saying those two for paladin more so than other classes? I see a lot of human and half-elf everything. Not sure that implies anything about paladins. More about human and half-elf as really good race choices in general.


First, gish isn't a class. Second, I disagree about the whole "MAD" thing on its face. More how? What classic 4 class doesn't benefit greatly from having at least three high ability scores?


If everyone played D&D the way you do, perhaps. But that is very much not the case. Also, your placing so much focus on a race's stat bumps, over the various other racial traits and benefits, seems myopic and corner-case. And that's leaving out "RP/concept" reasons. Cuz that ain't nuthin' neither.

Any class wiht high stats is great but a lot of classes can function fine with a high con+ primary spell casting stat or strength/con for barbarians. The gish type classes often need 3 or 4 stats to be somewhat effective. I would rather see a monk with 3 16s for example than a twinked out combat wombat with great weapon master.

 

[Psikerlord#]

It seems to me that the stat system is actively biased against the front line combat types.

A fighter-type has to concentrate on Str, Dex, and Con to perform well in the combat pillar of the game. Paladins also need Cha. This leaves little space, especially in a point-buy campaign, for decent stats in the social pillar of the game. Rear-rankers need only one good stat - Int for Wizards, Wis for clerics, Cha for Sorcerors and warlocks, etc - to excel at the combat pillar and these are coincidentally the prime stats for the social and investigative pillars of the game. Sure you can take feats or put ASIs into bad stats, but that doesn't actually solve the problem.

I mean, how often do we see Int 8-10, Wis 8-10 Paladins? How often do we see a fighter with Int 14? It seems to me that to be a good fighter it's very difficult to be good at the social pillar.

Or am I missing something?

This is one of the reasons to roll stats, imo - to avoid the otherwise inevitable 8 Int fighter, etc. Just allow players to reroll or use each others arrays until everyone is happy/feels like it is a roughly even starting point.

 

[Zardnaar]

This is one of the reasons to roll stats, imo - to avoid the otherwise inevitable 8 Int fighter, etc. Just allow players to reroll or use each others arrays until everyone is happy/feels like it is a roughly even starting point.

You forgot the 8 charisma option as well. I kind of miss the charismatic and intelligent fighters of 2E.

 

[Horwath]

Give more points on point buy. Limit max buy at 15.

then when they fill str or dex and con, there will be enough leftovers for int,wis,cha.
with 32pts instead of 27 you can have 15,15,12,12,12,10 before racials.

or take 15,13,13,13,13,11 and play human