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

[Zardnaar]

Or you can roll 4d6 and drop the lowest, take your chances Hell played a thief with 3d6 in the lead up to 5E managed to get 13,13 anda 15 as best 3 stats in a game where 13-15 was only +1 modifier.

 

[Horwath]

Or you can roll 4d6 and drop the lowest, take your chances Hell played a thief with 3d6 in the lead up to 5E managed to get 13,13 anda 15 as best 3 stats in a game where 13-15 was only +1 modifier.

We rolled for first few years of our D&D carriers but sometimes it got stupid when you had below average adventurers right by ubermench.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

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

Is it a case of character balance? You feel that, for example a paladin is unviably underpowered compared to a dex fighter when built with 27 points, but using a 32 point buy brings them more level?

 

[Horwath]

Is it a case of character balance? You feel that, for example a paladin is unviably underpowered compared to a dex fighter when built with 27 points, but using a 32 point buy brings them more level?

yes, more points would balance classes more. Paladin needs high str and cha and decent con. So he will have to tank int and dex.
It's not for being underpowered in their role, but rather being poor in versatility of non combat roles.


fighter needs only str or dex and con and have more to spread around other 4 abilities.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

yes, more points would balance classes more. Paladin needs high str and cha and decent con. So he will have to tank int and dex.
It's not for being underpowered in their role, but rather being poor in versatility of non combat roles.


fighter needs only str or dex and con and have more to spread around other 4 abilities.

But is a Fighter starting with say, 16s in Str and Con actually more powerful in the game than a Paladin with 14s in Str, Cha and Con?

In combat, that's a few more HP and +1 of to hit/damage, over the Paladin, but the Paladin also gets to use their Charisma to affect their performance in combat.

In terms of versatility, the Paladin already has one of the most important non-combat stats covered as well as being able to apply it for additional versatility through spells.
The decision to sacrifice flavour and/or versatility for min/maxing/combat optimisation is always going to be there, right up until the player has enough points to max out all of their ability scores.

You seem to be taking the view that both Paladins and Fighters (and I assume by extension other classes) require a certain minimum value of every ability that their class uses before the class becomes playable.

What is that value?

 

[Li Shenron]

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?

Not a problem IMXP.

Front-liners do not all need both Str and Dex. You don't need Dex if you wear heavy armor. You don't need Str if you use finesse weapons. In fact Strength is one of the most easily dumpable stat in 5e, second only to Intelligence. Dex is not easily dumpable because it's used in saving throws and physical skills that you often cannot avoid (unlike the Strength-based skills), but this doesn't apply to the front-liners more than others.

Constitution is the least commonly dumped stats, because nobody wants to have low hit points, it doesn't matter if you are in the front-line or not. I don't see front-liners investing more in Con than back-liners, even if the latter get hit more rarely, they still have smaller HD and so IMXP almost every PC ends up securing a +1/+2 in Constitution.

Overall I would say that a lot of players boost both Strength and Dexterity only because of a traditional view that a Fighter should have both. Especially players that think they need to be at the top score with everything their class traditionally is good at "otherwise it's not playable", and then something else too "otherwise it's always the same".

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

In general, a point-buy system is going to punish you for putting points into anything that doesn't help your primary role, and the primary role of a fighter type doesn't involve being smart. That's an issue with point-buy systems, though, and not necessarily the fault of the stats themselves.

True..... and it's why i dislike both point buys and standard arrays.
However, just yesterday (i kid you not) i played with the idea of trying to create 1E or 2E classes with a point buy system, but retaining the minimal requirements for each class. Naturally i tried the ranger first, as it was a class that needed a 13, 13, 14, 14 in 4 ability scores, with one 13 being Dex or Int (depending on the edition), and the others being 13 STR, 14 Con and 14 Wis. A 27 point buy system, can get you a 14, 14, 13, 13, 11, 08 od 15, 13, 13, 13, 11, 08 from the get go, without any racial modifiers. Assuming this is 1E, you want your ranger to be Str based. So you take i.e. a variant human, you add +1 to 13 for 14 Con, +1 to 13 for 14 Wis.... et voila..... 15 STR, 11 Dex, 14 Con, 13 Int, 14 Wis, 8 Cha, human ranger with alert feat and +5 initiative. Or, standard human with 16 Str, 12 Dex, 14 Con, 14 Int, 14 Wis, 9 Cha. Or go with a half elf and gain 8+2 for 10 Cha, 13+1 for 14 Con and 14+1 for 15 Str and you have a 15 STR, 11 Dex, 14 Con, 13 Int, 14 Wis, 10 Cha ranger. In all these cases, these are pretty versatile and playable Characters. True, they may mature one ASI slower then regular optimizers (except the standard human, who has no issues keeping up), but i don't think they would fall that much behind and you could still have plenty of Wis and/or Int based skills depending on your background. Weather these arrays are viable for e 5E half casting dex based ranger is another thing though...... but you could still go for an outlander fighter.....

So..... IMO, things aren't all that bad. I might even make my replacement PC based on these...

EDIT: For a 2E, 13 Dex ranger, just swap Int for Dex.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

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 genuinely confused. The whole long paragraph above goes on and on about all the stuff EKs get and can do. Then you say paladins are stronger. I don't get it.

I'm also sure I'd enjoy playing in a game with 12 as my top stat as any class.

So why then claim you need multiple, extremely high stats to be viable?

I still enjoy tinkering with classes like paladins on paper with point buy.

That's fine. But why are you letting that influence what you know to be true? That 5e's BA system does not require high stats to be playable.

But the point remains that from a mechanical perspective some classes are a little more MAD than others.

5e cast dispel illusion on MAD.

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.

This sounds hyperbolic to me. I just don't see it. An archer rogue has plenty of places where stat bonuses are extremely useful. It is still a decision point.

If you're interested in having a min maxed/optimized/strong/whatever character, some builds just have more mechanical and RP diversity.

This, I flat-out rebuke. Not only because it falsely equates "builds" with roleplaying options, but also because it continues to conflate optimization with power-levels. Cap'n Kobold already addressed that point above.

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.

Not exactly. It's that, until you can show that MAD even exists in 5e, to a degree that you seem to claim, I will continue to reject your premise. How can MAD exist if a character with all scores ranging from 10-14 is functional and playable?

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.

Again, every class, every build, has plenty of places where a stat bump is beneficial, interesting, and useful. Unless you can give an actual example of a class that has no use for more than one or two high ability scores...

 

[Salamandyr]

I'm to the point I'm ready to just let players assign themselves the scores they want in the stats they want, and then adjusting things to suit.

Every "official" stat generation method is going to result in the same thing; players are going to rank stats from most to least important, which means that unless the fighter is using 4d6 drop the lowest and rolled really (and improbably) or is assigning as rolled, then intelligence or charisma is going to be subpar.

This tells me that players actually want higher stats than they are allowed to have. So why not give it to them? Does having a 14 Int or 16 Cha fighter really make him a lot more powerful?

 

[n00b f00]

If after that massive paragraph you don't agree that st the very least some classes have different stat point flexibility. Then nothing I'm going to say is likely to shed any new light on it, either our views are to divergent or my points too poorly made.

I thank you for taking the time to read and respond to it though.