D&D 5E Minimum ability scores for a PC

[MasterTrancer]

Greetings all! In another thread I started, I made some quick assumptions, one of which was about the ability scores of the adventuring people (either PCs and NPCs).

I know that there are many styles and preferences, so I just wanted to do a fast survey: what would you deem "enough" for a PC to start adventuring? Not for a one shot, or a short campaign. Where would you draw the line, in 5E, about the playability of a PC, including considerations on the concept?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

At least one score of 16, and no more than three scores below 10.

So, for example, I would consider a character to be playable if its rolls were 3, 4, 5, 11, 12, 16.

 

[Selkirk]

16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11. or could be 15,14,13..etc. i hate dump stats from a flavor perspective-just ruins everything. you end up with the party leader/face with a 6 charisma or the fighter as forrest gump. but yeah you could play pretty much any class in 5e with a 16 dex/12/12 and the rest 8's (most of the stats are meaningless in play except dex).

 

[Evhelm]

I like my players to have truly heroic characters. I tell them that I want them to have a "by-the-book" style roll-up, though in practice they know I often allow one more re-roll.

In reality, I don't think I'd let a player out of the gate with more than one negative score (i.e. even two 9s would probably have me thinking about offering a re-roll). Having said that, I would be squeamish if the characters had more than one 18. I'd say most of my games have characters with a spread of 2-3 intermediate abilities (13-15), 1-2 low abilities (10-12), possibly one "very low" ability (9 or less), and at least one "good" ability score (16+).

Most of my players tend to develop a character concept that involves a few character strengths and ignores potential weaknesses. This isn't hubris, or even ignorance, but rather a lack of a desire to role-play a low ability score. None of my players really feel empowered role-playing that low intelligence fighter, low strength sorcerer, or low charisma rogue, so they avoid having a "dump stat," and I'm okay with that Having an "average" score works fine.

Disclaimer: This is purely idiosyncratic. I don't expect that anyone else does it this way and I wouldn't necessarily endorse this for others

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

The standard (15, 14, 13, 12, 10 and 08) is fair enough to me. You'll probably get a +3 modifier in your primary stat after racial adjustments, so you'll get an overall balanced adventurer. I allow players to roll, though, but if they roll they have to keep whatever they get. We got some losers this way, but it's not really gambling when you're either winning or breaking even.

 

[Crothian]

Any character is playable and I can have fun playing a really bad character stat wise so there is no minimum. It is very possible that a weak character will die quickly though, the game can be like that.

 

[ad_hoc]

I recently rolled a character for a game. Came out to 14, 14, 14, 13, 8, 6

If I were DMing I think this would be near the minimum for 4d6 drop lowest.

The main consideration is how it will stack up to the other characters. If you want actual balance use point buy of course. Still, all characters should be able to contribute.

No stats above a 13 is an automatic reroll I think.

With the big stat bumps in 5e I am actually starting to dislike 4d6 drop lowest. Might be fun to try 3d6 again.

 

[Paraxis]

My line in the sand is the default array. One ability score below 10 but still 8 or higher, and at least two scores I can boost to a 16 through racial ability modifiers.

 

[Dausuul]

At least one stat of 15 or higher. That's pretty much it. You gotta be good at something.

 

[mamol]

As a GM (and as a player) I always want to use the standard array or point buy. It provides a fair start for everyone and I don't have to worry about too weak (or too strong) characters when I design encounters.