D&D 5E Assumptions about character creation

[Maxperson]

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.

The challenge rating of creatures assumes that you don't have magic weapons. Just a few magic weapons in the party makes those encounters very easy. You don't need them, but they do make it a lot easier.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Stats in 5e just don't mean that much. If you have a high stat and proficiency it's good, but all of those areas where you don't have proficiency, the extra +1 or +2 don't break anything.

 

[Shiroiken]

There really isn't a default assumption on character build. I've played several characters that started with a +2 in their primary ability and they worked out fine. Survivability at lower levels is slightly easier with a +3, but the difference really is minimal. Pretty much the only things you shouldn't do is have a negative modifier for your primary ability or Constitution, in which case you're just trying to play a useless character.

As for rolling vs. array, vs. point buy, it's entirely group dependent. Personally I prefer the concept of an array, but I hate the standard array, preferring instead to have a few to choose from. I detest point buy, as it tends to create the same ability score layout every time (after racial adjustment): 16 in primary, 14 in secondary and Constitution, with the rest filled in with whatever is left. Rolling tends to be an issue mostly when there's one or more players that feel that it's a competition between them, causing inter-party conflict. I do agree that various "re-roll" methods reduce the element of risk/reward, defeating the purpose of rolling in the first place, and have actually enjoyed playing the "minimum viable" character I rolled in 3E.

 

[Al'Kelhar]

I was under the impression that the Critical Role group roll their ability scores. Is that wrong?

Yep, the imbalance in Crit Role PC stats is incredible (or, at least, in the second campaign, which is the only one I've watched). But, the players don't play to their PCs' stats, seemingly completely unconcerned about the massive disconnect between the statistical characteristics of their characters and their in-game behaviour. It works for them. YMMV

 

[Maxperson]

Yep, the imbalance in Crit Role PC stats is incredible (or, at least, in the second campaign, which is the only one I've watched). But, the players don't play to their PCs' stats, seemingly completely unconcerned about the massive disconnect between the statistical characteristics of their characters and their in-game behaviour. It works for them. YMMV

That's because lots of high stats just aren't that big of a deal as I mentioned earlier. Your class only keys off of a few stats, which are probably going to be decent to high already, and the rest don't really matter all that much. As long as your group doesn't have stat envy, stat disparity is pretty irrelevant in 5e.

 

[Fenris-77]

There are also stats that even the best role players dont play well, generally, like INT and WIS and CHA.

 

[Flamestrike]

I suspect if you did a survey you would probably find that contrary to what most people who post on the internet expect and exprience, most people still roll.

And the roll of magic items like Guantlets of Ogre Power and the like to balance out poor rolls (rather than just make good characters even better) has been returned to the game.

Not that I'm personally an advocate for rolling.

I'm point buy all the way. Rolling is outdated and leads to unhappy players from day 1, every single time.

Recently I've been using a variant of the Standard Array with 2 different arrays.

Choose either

15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8

Or

14, 13, 13, 11, 10, 8 (and a Feat)

Humans get a free skill proficiency (to make a more human-centric game) and Vumans are banned.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Mike Mearls did say early on that the math is designed with the idea that your character's primary stat will have a +3 bonus the entire game. They've also said that magic items aren't figured into the math. The point of this is that every bonus you get (whether through an item or through an Ability Score increase) actually makes you better (as opposed to just keeping up with the math).

Now, that being said, I played around comparing PC attack bonuses versus monster ACs at various levels. What I determined is that if you start with a PC with a +3 bonus to attack, and assume they receive their share of the number major magic items XGtE assumes you'll get by certain levels, and assume that about half of those items are weapons or armor, and assume that character advances their primary stat bonus up to +4 and +5 at their earliest opportunity...

...the chance for one of those PCs to hit the average AC of a monster of CR equal to their level is 65% at all sampled levels (1st, 5th, 11th, 17th, 20th).

I'm not sure where that discrepancy is coming from, because that seems really convenient if it's an accident. It would, however, mean that Mike Mearls mispoke, or I misremembered or misunderstood him.

That being said, 5e really is easy mode, and regardless of what the numbers I derived say, adding magic items does make your party strong enough that the same threats will be much easier to face.

But I think it is fair to say, regardless of how later advancement works out, both that the game's math assumes a starting character will have a +3 bonus in the primary stat, and that not having a +3 isn't going to be a problem.

 

[Fenris-77]

Let me be the first to say that, given the above, Mike Mearls can kiss my lily white ass. The game works fine without that level of bonus.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Let me be the first to say that, given the above, Mike Mearls can kiss my lily white ass. The game works fine without that level of bonus.

He would likely agree with you that it works fine without that bonus. He was just answering a question about what the math was based on in design. And you have two options in design: either you know how the math works out, or you don't. I'm very glad that the D&D designers actually paid attention to how it works out, even if I'm not really sure what all is going on with this particular math.