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

[ChrisCarlson]

If after that massive paragraph...

I typed fewer words than your post to which I responded. Not sure why you are making is sound like I tried to cast wall of text.

...you don't agree that [a]t the very least some classes have different stat point flexibility.

Correct. No class/build is immune to wishing it had higher scores in every stat. That doesn't make it at all necessary in 5e. Because BA.

Heck, my current favorite PC is a Rogue (assassin)/Monk (shadow)/Warlock (fey/blade). By your standards that would be an extremely MAD concept. Because he has four stats that are mechanically important: Dex, Con, Wis, and Cha. We play using standard array. I manage just fine. In fact, I'm having a blast. I'm very effective, flavorful, competent, have oodles of utility and combat prowess, and have never once felt gimped by my ability scores.

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've been trying to say that, if one discards their previous edition(s) viewpoints, they will find 5e is an entirely different animal, not beholden to those systems' preconceptions or design expectations.

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

And you as well.

 

[procproc]

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?

I'm very confused by this statement. From what I've read in this thread, n00b f00 made the (utterly unexceptional) claim that some 5e classes are more MAD than others. I don't really see how anyone could argue that's UNtrue.

 

[hejtmane]

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.

Why I do not do point buy and do the 4d6 drop one reminds me of UnEarth Arcana from the 1.0 days

 

[ChrisCarlson]

I'm very confused by this statement. From what I've read in this thread, n00b f00 made the (utterly unexceptional) claim that some 5e classes are more MAD than others. I don't really see how anyone could argue that's UNtrue.

I am. If you think its true, show your work. I did. And that's even given that its generally easier to prove a positive than a negative.

 

[Gimul]

I disagree with both those statements. Dex still affects initiative order, saving throws, etc, and front line types do need higher Con as they're more likely to take damage and thus need HP.

Fighters and paladins need 1 stat (Str, Dex can substitute). Rangers are mostly the same, though are more likely to choose Dex over str, and Wisdom is nice for utility. Rogues the same, only Dex instead of str.

Bards, sorcerers and wizard need 1 stat, whatever their primary Casting stat is.

Clerics and Bard's need 2 stats, primary Casting and primary attack (though some builds and use the same stat for both roles).

Barbarians and monks need 3 stats, though only the primary attack stat needs to be "high", the other two should just have positive modifiers (and some builds can use 2 if Dex is also the primary attack stat).

Con is a useful secondary or tertiary stat for damage soakers, regardless of class.

Dex is a useful secondary or tertiary stat for pretty much everyone.

 

[procproc]

I am. If you think its true, show your work. I did. And that's even given that its generally easier to prove a positive than a negative.

Having read the thread, I'm not really sure where you "show[ed] your work", but sure, I'm game.

Fighters require Str or Dex to effectively function as a class. Paladins require Str or Dex, as well as Chr, to effectively function as a class. Therefore Paladins are more MAD than Fighters. QED.

That seems really clear and unobjectionable to me, and I'm struggling to understand the position that claims it's not true.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Fighters require Str or Dex to effectively function as a class. Paladins require Str or Dex, as well as Chr, to effectively function as a class. Therefore Paladins are more MAD than Fighters. QED.

That seems really clear and unobjectionable to me, and I'm struggling to understand the position that claims it's not true.

You can play a paladin that is effective and entirely functional that never causes anyone to make a spell saving throw, and never makes a spell attack roll, and thus doesn't have any greatly hindering effect of not having a particularly high Charisma.

Alternatively, you can play a paladin that is effective and yet doesn't have much in the way of Str or Dex, since the downside is able to be limited to "I move a little slower and can't carry quite as much." when doing so.

 

[TwoSix]

Having read the thread, I'm not really sure where you "show[ed] your work", but sure, I'm game.

Fighters require Str or Dex to effectively function as a class. Paladins require Str or Dex, as well as Chr, to effectively function as a class. Therefore Paladins are more MAD than Fighters. QED.

That seems really clear and unobjectionable to me, and I'm struggling to understand the position that claims it's not true.

Hint: It's around the words effectively function.

 

[procproc]

You can play a paladin that is effective and entirely functional that never causes anyone to make a spell saving throw, and never makes a spell attack roll, and thus doesn't have any greatly hindering effect of not having a particularly high Charisma.

Alternatively, you can play a paladin that is effective and yet doesn't have much in the way of Str or Dex, since the downside is able to be limited to "I move a little slower and can't carry quite as much." when doing so.

You can absolutely play either of those options.

However, the point that I'm making is that the paladin has more class features that function based on specific stats, and as such, the paladin is more MAD. It sounds like you agree that that's the case, based on the options you presented.

 

[procproc]

Hint: It's around the words effectively function.

By all means, please, spell it out for me rather than just hinting.