D&D 5E Assumptions about character creation

[MoonSong]

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.

They break my ability to immerse. I need to have actually flawed characters, I don't enjoy playing a character that is too superhuman. Stats it the last few editions have become too high for my tastes. At least with point buy I can get some control, but even point buy is too high and not low enough. I'm sorry, but a 12 anything shouldn't be considered "low", it isn't actually low. It is good. Or at least should be good. Probably I have too old school sensibilities in this regard, but those +1/+2 are in addition to the +1's you get from race and half feats. If you are rolling on top of it, characters very easily turn into superheroes and demi gods.

I really prefer playing characters that are closer to me in the scale of things.

 

[Maxperson]

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 Rolling is outdated and leads to unhappy players from day 1, every single time.

So I play in two groups that roll exclusively. 12 players in total and never an unhappy one. I've also over the years played in several other groups that rolled without any unhappy players.

Perhaps you might be wrong with that claim, and the one that says rolling is outdated. You're dislike of a method does not equate to it being outdated.

 

[Maxperson]

They break my ability to immerse. I need to have actually flawed characters, I don't enjoy playing a character that is too superhuman. Stats it the last few editions have become too high for my tastes. At least with point buy I can get some control, but even point buy is too high and not low enough. I'm sorry, but a 12 anything shouldn't be considered "low", it isn't actually low. It is good. Or at least should be good. Probably I have too old school sensibilities in this regard, but those +1/+2 are in addition to the +1's you get from race and half feats. If you are rolling on top of it, characters very easily turn into superheroes and demi gods.

I really prefer playing characters that are closer to me in the scale of things.

So, statistically speaking, super characters are part of the world, too. It doesn't break my immersion, because they are just as much a part of the world as flawed(with stats) characters. Also, flaws encompass more than just stats. You can have a PC with straight 18s and still have serious flaws that affect how that PC interacts with the world.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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

the default assumption is that scores are rolled.

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

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

any specifics would be great. 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...

Dunno if it says this in 5e anywhere, but 4e actually did provide advice on this front. It tended to come at the "build" level (what 5e would call "subclass") rather than at the class level, e.g. if you have a class with subclass X, it would look something like "if you want to do X, make A your primary score, B your second highest score, and C your third highest score. Choose powers[/skills] that [take advantage of these scores.]"

I suspect that aversion to such advice being present in the 5e PHB is part of the (over)reaction to 4e being perceived as "technical" and "excessively game-y" etc.

 

[MoonSong]

So, statistically speaking, super characters are part of the world, too. It doesn't break my immersion, because they are just as much a part of the world as flawed(with stats) characters. Also, flaws encompass more than just stats. You can have a PC with straight 18s and still have serious flaws that affect how that PC interacts with the world.

Probably, but I'm only speaking for myself here. And yes super characters do exist, but it strains my suspension of disbelief that all characters happen to be statistical outliers. It also makes for a worse experience to me, because it starts to signal that this fantasy world that would be escapist can only be populated by born winners.

And that character with straight 18s, I wonder how he/she manages to be flawed when it is in the 1% most wise, likeable and smart. I know probably not perfect and not being the best at everything. But being above average at something is not a flaw. Not being perfect is not a flaw. Being actually bad at something is a flaw. Or at the very least a meaningful flaw, that has actual effects. I'm sorry, but to me it feels like cheating roleplaying a flaw that isn't actually there.

 

[Don Durito]

What counts as a good score is all relative. After all, Gygax did say in the 1e DMG that a character without at least two 15s wasn't really viable.

 

[pming]

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

the default assumption is that scores are rolled.

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

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

any specifics would be great. 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...

Hiya!

Bad assumption.
Different groups have different focuses. In my original, longest standing group (of which I still play with some of them; this is from the mid-80's; two players are from the beginning in '81, but haven't played with them in over 2 decades)...anyway....where was I? Oh yeah, my original group tended towards just picking a race/class that "grabbed their attention" after rolling their stats (3d6, in order; then 4d6, in order; then 4d6, wherever; choice is up to the player to choose which method to use). I've seen Fighters with 4 Strength (Basic D&D), Wizards with 13 Int but 18 Str and 17 Con (Basic D&D), Thief with 12 Dexterity (1e), and Clerics with 11 Wisdom and 6 Charisma (1e). And many, many in between.

For 5e, I honestly don't think Stats make a HUGE difference. Oh, for the record, we don't use Multiclassing, Feats or any of the Optional books (except on a case-by-case basis); meaning that a Fighter with a 12 Str and one with an 18 doesn't make that much of a difference...the ability to "min/max" is mitigated more than enough.

The core game assumes NO Feats, Multiclassing, etc. Most 5e DM's I talk to and read about make a HUGE mistake in allowing "everything under the sun" in terms of "optional books and whatnot" (Sage Advice, additional races/classes from adventures, Feats, Multiclassing, etc)...and then don't do anything to 'fix' all the things that just broke; typically monster/NPC opponents and skill DC's. So you get "this is OP" or "that is OP"...yeah...because the DM didn't add +100 to the other side of the equation, so now the PC's are all at Base Line +100 and the monsters are still at Base Line.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Maxperson]

Probably, but I'm only speaking for myself here. And yes super characters do exist, but it strains my suspension of disbelief that all characters happen to be statistical outliers. It also makes for a worse experience to me, because it starts to signal that this fantasy world that would be escapist can only be populated by born winners.

What system of rolling have you been using.? Characters where the low stat is 12 are exceedingly rare. Most characters have at least one stat under 10, sometimes lower than 8.

And that character with straight 18s, I wonder how he/she manages to be flawed when it is in the 1% most wise, likeable and smart. I know probably not perfect and not being the best at everything. But being above average at something is not a flaw. Not being perfect is not a flaw. Being actually bad at something is a flaw. Or at the very least a meaningful flaw, that has actual effects. I'm sorry, but to me it feels like cheating roleplaying a flaw that isn't actually there.

Even with straight 18's, the character can be arrogant and overconfident. Perhaps cowardly. Maybe have an uncontrollable need to have gems, to the point where he would steal them. There are all kinds of flaws you can insert that will be fun to roleplay and have consequences when you do so.

 

[pming]

What counts as a good score is all relative. After all, Gygax did say in the 1e DMG that a character without at least two 15s wasn't really viable.

Hiya!

While I don't doubt you, I can't find or remember where in the DMG. At any rate, I feel I must point out a HUGE reason for EGG or anyone making such a statement: "There are no skill checks in 1e PHB/DMG/MM".

If a PC wanted to bake a cake for a village competition, the DM would likely have the Player roll against the characters Int or maybe Wis. A PC wanting to jump across a 12' crevass might need to make a Str roll on 1d20 and get equal to or lower than his Str score. So...in this sense..., characters with no stat above 12 are likely to run into a situation sooner (rather than later) that gets them killed. Ergo the 'need' for at least a stat or two of 15+. I highly doubt that EGG would say the same thing about 5e, gods rest his soul.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Don Durito]

I don't belive there was any such rule in 1e. I believe it was a common house rule, and that it was in at least one version of basic, but pretty sure it never appeared in 1e.

As for where it is, it's in the section of the DMG where it lays out different ways to roll up a character (and notably none of them are 3d6 in order).

As for the reason for it - I suspect straightforward power creep from 0d&d.