D&D 5E Assumptions about character creation

[DND_Reborn]

I have seen a number of people claim that the game ‘assumes’ a certain score in a certain stat.

The game doesn't, (some) players do.

the default assumption is that scores are rolled.

The default design is according to the PHB. Using the standard array is also a promoted option for players who don't want to roll. The variant (very popular IME) is point-buy.

So, because the default design is rolling, people seem to assume that most groups roll. In our games it is about 50/50 rolling/point-buy.

just curious. I assume people put a good score in main/attack stat, but where has that been explicitly stated?

It isn't stated anywhere except when other than the Quick Build section for each class as @Oofta stated.

additionally, I have seen assertions about the math of the game likewise assuming certain scores in certain places.

Again, the game doesn't assume it. For "enjoyability" and increasing your chance of survival, the designers seem to assume you will put your better scores (as defined by the standard array, namely 15 and 14) in your most "useful" scores for your class.

As someone who has examined stat blocks, AC, ability scores, etc. by CR, if you follow the idea of using your better scores (which would grant a +2 modifier, at least), then you can estimate the likelihood of success, etc., which runs about 60-65% IME.

Common sense says bonuses are good but where is that written? Just curious as the game seems to be less lethal than some past editions...

Again, it isn't other than in the Quick Build and in reflection looking at things such as NPC stat blocks and pre-generated characters for adventures and such.

Game lethality has come up many times. IMO it is less lethal, but again this is according to the "design" and such things as the "adventuring day". Of course, how lethal the game is really is DM fiat-- the DM can make it as deadly or not as they desire.

Adding things such as buying healing potions, short rest healing, revivify, etc., the designers certainly seem to want to make survival easy.

 

[Don Durito]

These days I like to give out a selection of arrays to choose from.

For example something like this: 17,9,15,11,15,11 (but with the condition that the 17 can neither go into your primary attack stat or into Con). This is the best array, but it's specifically to enable more offbeat characters.

 

[Al2O3]

I've heard that too, but it's complete nonsense. They absolutely do expect magic items. There's even a chart somewhere, in DMG I think, that shows how many they expect PCs to have got by tier.

The assumption is that no magic items providing a numeric bonus to attack is needed in order to hit with the attacks. You probably do need magic weapons to overcome resistance and immunity to many attacks. However, a lot of the other items might be alchemy jugs and the like, i.e. fun and maybe useful items that are not intended for combat.

One way you can notice bounded accuracy in the game is how the advantage mechanic is designed. It's a double roll that increases the your chances of success within the normal range of ACs or DCs rather than a numeric bonus that increases the range of ACs or DCs you can hit. I think there might be other features that also focus on increasing the damage done rather the chance to hit.

Bounded accuracy as a concept is mostly relevant even discussing why certain elements are designed the way they are, and why some house rules or similar could be bad if you go against the philosophy. But as long as nobody messes with significant increases or decreases in the numbers for AC, DC and bonuses to beat those values you can happily ignore the concept. Of course, discussing design choices is one of the fun things to on forums, so here it is relevant to know some things that were discussed during the playtest for 5e.

 

[TwoSix]

This was, IMO, one of the worst design decisions in the entire edition. It's a concept that is foreign to most gamers nowadays, and while it does something unique, that thing it does is only welcome in a very uncommon play style.

Rolling stats works if you are playing the game as a survival challenge, of if you don't already have a character concept. Most people already have a character concept before they roll stats. And most people don't have an urge to take what the dice give them and challenge themselves to make it survive and thrive.

No, most people come to the game wanting to play a tough, strong dwarf (or nowadays, more like a wood elf monk or a tiefling warlock, but I digress), possibly with a name, and a backstory. But if you are rolling for stats (and/or hp), you are just as likely to be unpleasantly surprised by low rolls that interfere with your concept as you are with high rolls that empower it. And if your entire character concept is a tough dwarf, but you end up with a Con 14, and roll a lot of 1s and 2s for hit points, while the halfling rogue or elf cleric in the party ended up with a Con 16 and keeps rolling 7s and 8s for hit points, your entire character concept is shot.

This. The modern game is based around supporting the individual player's concept and letting them play their vision in the game, not around rolling a randomized character and seeing how they grow. More Critical Role, less roguelike.

This isn't a value judgment, both ways of playing have their fun; I'm simply stating where the meta of the game has moved towards.

 

[Don Durito]

Bah. Unless you're rolling ability scores in order take what you get no rerolls, you're not really rolling anyway (don't want). You're just doing an awkward run around the dull bland predictability of point buy.

However, I do enjoy how people rolling dice completely destroys the optimisers baselines for all their calculations.

 

[R_J_K75]

However, I do enjoy how people rolling dice completely destroys the optimisers baselines for all their calculations.

To me when I was a player or a DM in editions that had stricter rules on PC creation the fun was taking what you got, making a pc and having fun with it. Same with parties I was DMing for, roll with your rolls.

 

[cbwjm]

I much prefer rolling stats and I think in every game I've played in that was the default method for character creation. It can make for an interesting character when you roll yourself an 18 and then see that you've also rolled a 5. A lot of people I've seen on these forums and Reddit are incredibly vocal about how rolling stats is bad and I'm just glad that none of those people are people I play with.

 

[TwoSix]

However, I do enjoy how people rolling dice completely destroys the optimisers baselines for all their calculations.

Any good optimizer has a plan in place for how to handle low rolls and high rolls in a roll-only environment. The calculations aren't THAT hard.

 

[MoonSong]

I much prefer rolling stats and I think in every game I've played in that was the default method for character creation. It can make for an interesting character when you roll yourself an 18 and then see that you've also rolled a 5. A lot of people I've seen on these forums and Reddit are incredibly vocal about how rolling stats is bad and I'm just glad that none of those people are people I play with.

I don't know, I'm not against rolling straight 3d6, but every other method just produces too many high scores without a way to control them. At least before 4e there were minuses in your race that made it easier to control your character. But most modern rolling methods produce monstrosities I have a very hard time empathizing with.

 

[aco175]

I think the game assumes most players are fairly competent and will place the highest number in the best stat for the class. How well most players play the game in terms of min/maxing and how the makers use the average player skills to make the game. They target the average to mostly skilled player. How soon after 5e came out did we have discussions on how weak the game was and scaling power levels to make it fun for powergamers.