D&D 5E I feel like there is a problem with ability score bonuses.

[Salamandyr]

Another option...since d20 already knocked Rolemaster down and took its stuff, rifle around in its pockets and get the rule they missed alongside the pocket lint and leftover chewing gum...

As DM, pick two stats to apply to each major mechanic and average them.

Attack Bonus: Strength/Dexterity (Or for the really hard core ST/ST/DX for melee, or DX/DX/ST for ranged)
Initiative: Dexterity/Intelligence
Intimidation: Strength/Charisma

and et cetera.

Each stat should be the single deciding factor in one thing. Like Strength could be the only deciding factor in Damage Bonus. Intelligence could be the sole determiner in languages (while Int/Wis adds to knowledge skills). Dex maybe is it for AC or Init. Bonus.


Again, this rewards spreading your stats around a bit, and lets a character overcome weak points.

 

[5ekyu]

As others have said, its common for reason. You are choosing a class because you want to do what it does and key attributes matter there. If you look at secondary and tertiary abilities they vary,more based on "who am I" vs "what's my job". Even IRL I expect "greats" at a profession to be great at certain things then vary more in the smaller stuff. Just don't see many average strength Olympian weight lifters or many clumsy gymnasts or many Nobel physics winning dullards.

Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

 

[Wiseblood]

As others have said, its common for reason. You are choosing a class because you want to do what it does and key attributes matter there. If you look at secondary and tertiary abilities they vary,more based on "who am I" vs "what's my job". Even IRL I expect "greats" at a profession to be great at certain things then vary more in the smaller stuff. Just don't see many average strength Olympian weight lifters or many clumsy gymnasts or many Nobel physics winning dullards.

Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

The examples you cite aren't beginners. Gymnasts and weight lifters have been practicing for years. Nobel Laureates in physics are most often PHDs perhaps not so much in decades past.
These people are more than just smart, strong or nimble they are trained, practiced and have spent more time training than the 33 days 5e characters need to hit level 20.

 

[5ekyu]

Honestly I have no idea about we days to level 20 thing unless you are mathing out "adventuring days" to co etc so I will just shrug that one. Players characters, even at level 1 are not novices. They are exceptional. They are well above your typical commoner and average working Joe that makes up likely 90% or more of the warm bodies in a campaign world. By the time they hit 4 or 8 or 12 they are even further along their road to epic but even from day 1 they are the stars of the story. Now, of course, any given campaign can be different, but I don't know of many routinely used d&d campaign settings where the pcs were considered to not be special and working towards greater. Now if you are considering the levels in question to be limited to the early levels, then how in the world is "within four points" of a range for primary ability a problem given the possible starting range is basically only 8-16? A four point range is "top half" for your typical point buy or matrix possible for beginner levels 1-3. Luke did not become a Jedi cuz his force was weak, right?

Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

 

[5ekyu]

BTW part of this is the nature of the challenges the GM chooses to present. Are the MMO style hyper-focused roles forced by constant use of high performance tests and few cases where being the second best helps and almost never where being bad hurts cuz your buddy who is good covers that for you? Do skills matter more than just a few early combat setup? Does it matter if your fighter can talk his way out of a ticket? Or does he just shut up and let the bard talk? If the world presents enough cases where everyone needs to sneak or everyone faces need for social wins or everyone needs to figure out arcana runes or offer proper offerings or just forage for their own food, then esp with point buy you should see fewer maxed and more spread abilities. HOwever, more spread ability scores where everybody tries to cover many bases does not equal more diversity in scores. It means less. If everybody is loaded with 12s, 14s and maybe not even a 16, those getting all twisted up over scores being with 4 on one stat likely won't be happier to see all six scores on every character inside a 4 pt range because they spread points instead of stacking them.

Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

 

[Warmaster Horus]

The examples you cite aren't beginners. Gymnasts and weight lifters have been practicing for years. Nobel Laureates in physics are most often PHDs perhaps not so much in decades past.
These people are more than just smart, strong or nimble they are trained, practiced and have spent more time training than the 33 days 5e characters need to hit level 20.

A PC isn't a beginner, either. It's not like a fighter has never seen a sword before or a wizard not cast a spell.

As for 33 days to Level 20, my 19th Level PC has been going since 5e started, been through multiple campaigns and dozens of independent modules. He's killed dragons, demon princes, liches and more - and not the easy way. He's got an estate to tend to and single-handedly started a schism in his church, which take skill beyond his sword arm.

 

[5ekyu]

One final point, in d&d a class is not as much a profession as it is a means to getting things done. A "warrior" or "soldier" might be an adversary represented by a brute force rage machine or a speedy quick slasher or a tanked up man at arms and each of those three "warriors" has different main stats and secondary stats to varying degrees. By stating the problem in the framework of "given same class, primary stat too similar" you are basically framing it as if to ask why do folks who choose strength over speed.have such higher syrengths and so one. If as suggest the warrior pc is not special cuz his strength matches his opposition too closely, maybe more diverse opposition is the key.

Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

 

[Wiseblood]

A PC isn't a beginner, either. It's not like a fighter has never seen a sword before or a wizard not cast a spell.

As for 33 days to Level 20, my 19th Level PC has been going since 5e started, been through multiple campaigns and dozens of independent modules. He's killed dragons, demon princes, liches and more - and not the easy way. He's got an estate to tend to and single-handedly started a schism in his church, which take skill beyond his sword arm.

1st level PC has 0 experience points. They have skills and proficiencies but they are inexperienced.

They are beginners. Are they better than some or most? I don't care. As I said it is a feeling that soemthing is wrong not imperical fact. What bothers me is homogenous stats. Why are they homogenous? Because it's advantageous to have higher stats. Because the stat bonuses are dramatic and important.

33 days is hyperbole. I am glad your character has interesting achievments. My ears would perk up if he didn't have an18-20 in his main ability score. I don't know that he does. I can fairly state that based on my experience in 5e it is a safe assumption.

I also am not stating that it doesn't work. Or that I refuse to play or that I have a better way. Just a feeling that characters I once thought unique are pretty staid unless they are all but defective in their main stat.

 

[Satyrn]

Did you ever look at the Offensive Line for the Seattle Seahawks and wonder that?

I'm rather certain that the Buffalo Bill's coaching staff all dumped their Int.

"We gave up more than 40 points in each of the last 2 games - dump the quarterback!"

 

[BookBarbarian]

It's a feel thing so I could be wrong.(even if it wasn't I could be wrong too)

I am almost always on the DM side of the screen but I have noticed something common to almost al PC's. They have a 16 or better, usually better, in their main attack stat. This is true regardless of the method for character generation. I don't know why it bothers me or if it should but when every scorcerer is charismatic, every wizard intelligent every, rogue nimble and every barbarian strong and always within a 4 point threshold it messes with my chi (eg. qi).

I think this is an example of the Game working as intended . However, I do find that I can not only get by, but I can really enjoy a character that has 14 in the main stat (and most other stats). Especially if I seek out ways to find advantage on my attack rolls, or gain expertise in my most used skills.

Most recently I had a Fighter-Scout with 2 level Barbarian Dip, that used the Skill feats from UA to gain Athletics expertise. He had 14 for Str, Dex, Con, Wis, and even Int.

Reckless attack made him just fine at dealing melee damage. Expertise and being able to add have a superiority die roll to Athletics checks made him a great Grappler/Shover, he could even rage in a pinch to gain Advantage on those checks. my later ASIs will be used to Grab the Lucky feat, which will help with more missed rolls, and the Mobile feat for getting out of Dodge after recklessly attacking. Some levels of Revised Ranger will provide more Advantage, even at Range.

So while I do think the game incentivizes having a high main stat (and that's perfectly fine) it's totally possible to not do that and still have fun.

I actually think I'm having more fun than ever trying to get creative with ways to be effective, and even pretty dang good without a score over 14.