Lizard folk ranger: 12 STR, 15 DEX, 16 CON, 10 INT, 14 WIS, 8 CHA
High elf wizard: 8 STR, 16 DEX, 13 CON, 16 INT, 12 WIS, 10 CHA
What you said earlier: "Did the other player roll
higher and have a
17 for his STR? Oh, gee, he did. Wait, his race doesn't get a STR +2 so he can't get higher? Nope."
Clearly you've moved the goal posts by changing from your anecdotal STR based character to a DEX based ranger anecdotal example where the player chose options the specifically didn't match the possibilities. That's cherry-picking anecdotes.
Your cherry-picked example simply isn't apples to apples. Use a wood elf instead and it's 16 DEX and 16 WIS for the ranger. Stick with the lizard folk and the wizard is still behind by combat style starting at 2nd level, farther behind based on subclass options, farther behind because of extra attack, and never having a higher ability score cap in the long run at all.
It's like complaining the wood elf ranger has the same spell DC as a half orc wizard because that's what the player wanted.
Of course I did. That's the comparison we would be making because DEX is where the wizard was going in your example. 2d4+mod is less damage than 2d6+mod even ignoring the TWF combat style (because it's not popular).
Same attack bonus but less damage from having the same attack bonus. Clearly gaining less out of the same DEX score and modifier. Race can help with that (proficiencies) but DEX doesn't do that by itself.
A single level that blinks by is not concerning based on a deliberate choice to have a lower DEX than the wizard in the first place instead of a matching build.
The wizard proficiencies for weapons means they've trained in those weapons. That's just one of the basics of the game. It's trained vs non-trained. If it makes you feel better you can make them both use a weapon with which the wizard is not proficient. That seems like the kind of cherry picking a person might do.
What weapons are these? It looks like a comparison of a short sword and rapier. Either could TWF short swords going with the elf if you plan on being in melee anyway. I'm not convinced your 7 hp should really be in melee compared to your lizard folk's 13 hp, however.
The extra weight doesn't matter and stealth in 5e is very situational at 1st level. All he needs to do is take off the armor if he wants to be stealthy, or buy better armor once he has some gold.
Being an archer seems odd given the d6 mentioned earlier. The wizard has d8 as a ranged option. I do this all the time on many spell casters because cantrip damage is that bad in comparison.
That gets back to a double standard.
- wizards should have the same hit points as fighters
- wizards should not have the same attack bonus as fighters
It's also likely to be 13 hp on the lizard folk ranger example. The character needs to spend the 12 or 13 on CON for 12 hp and that doesn't make much sense unless the player is planning out 15 DEX, 15 CON, and 15 WIS at 1st level for some reason later, or wants 16 WIS at 1st level on the ranger.
The damage roll isn't the same in your example, although I think your example is a bit flawed. Crits favor the bigger die. I'm just confused why you wouldn't use a light crossbow for the d8 damage.
AC is only lower by choices made. Attack roll is only lower by choices made. Damage isn't actually the same but the difference is negligible at 1st level. Hit points greatly favor the ranger. So do ability checks given favored terrain will match the starting setting.
At 1st level the ranger also has the option of a DEX weapon and shield going archer or not, still having the better AC option.
Wizards aren't better than rangers at combat. That race of wizard can be slightly better at attacking and worse with hit points, and possibly worse at AC if the ranger also chooses to take a lower AC for reasons, than that race of ranger and only at 1st level. That's a difference in races, not classes, and only relevant in players who choose to make such a concession for concept.
There's nothing to fix here. One of the basic premises of 5e is a universal bonus. If person wants to change core concepts and everything balanced around it then that person is playing the wrong game. Casters with spells having the same general attack bonus with spells as warriors with weapons is a basic premise, and ability score is where the differences originate, which is also part of the core design concept of ability score bonuses being important in all tiers of the game.
They are simply by also choosing a race that matches better with the classes, and looking at any of the other 19/20 levels of the game.
Try the same argument with a half-orc barbarian, wood elf ranger, many varieties of fighter, a wood elf monk, many varieties of rogue, or a half elf paladin. The comparison could even be a variant human STR based ranger with heavy armor at 1st level. Heavy armor and HAM still gives that 18 STR at 4th level on a ranger that way.
This was a core design concept meant to give importance to ability score bonuses. You've demonstrated that worked in your argument. The ability score was the difference in the discussions, which doesn't demonstrate how a universal proficiency score is a bad thing. It only demonstrates it's "not how things should be" in your opinion. The concept does what it's supposed to with ability scores being prominent, and the scale does what it's supposed to with bounded accuracy and the DC scale.
It's not really the mechanics you are disagreeing with; it's the design goals. There are other games (and editions of this game) that use broader scales and vary the attack bonus based on class. This edition of this game doesn't do that on purpose so it's hard to be an issue when it's doing what it's supposed to.
