D&D 5E Wow! No more subraces. The Players Handbook races reformat to the new race format going forward.

[Bolares]

Oh I'm not arguing that Wizards is telling players to aim for 50% success.

The 65% noted in the optimization articles is because yes, every +1 is a 5% increase.

Makes a person appreciate Bless a lot more...

All I'm saying is that the game, the crunch, doesn't expect a 16 score for a character to function.

Of course it will be better, add in a Bless, Advantage, and you're golden.

Unless someone has some additional math somewhere that proves the game breaks down if you don't start with 16 or 17?

Good luck changing my mind.

Oh, got you. The bar you are setting is minimal functionability. okay, than no, the game doesn't break at less than 16. But it's the expected value for your primary stat.

With less than 16 your chracter won't be useless, but it will be underperforming.

 

[Scribe]

Oh, got you. The bar you are setting is minimal functionability. okay, than no, the game doesn't break at less than 16. But it's the expected value for your primary stat.

With less than 16 your chracter won't be useless, but it will be underperforming.

Under performing, if the bar is set to 'fully optimized'.

That's my point of contention.

The games mechanics do not expect 16.

65% success, 70% with Bless is not 'balanced' unless the PCs are intended to just waltz into any encounter with no sense of risk.

I mean people have noted Monsters are under tuned, that putting players under pressure doesn't happen 'naturally' in 5e.

Well, no kidding? If the players have been conditioned to believe they should only create optimal stats, then the game balance is hilariously in the players favour.

 

[HammerMan]

Under performing, if the bar is set to 'fully optimized'.

That's my point of contention.

The games mechanics do not expect 16.

65% success, 70% with Bless is not 'balanced' unless the PCs are intended to just waltz into any encounter with no sense of risk.

I mean people have noted Monsters are under tuned, that putting players under pressure doesn't happen 'naturally' in 5e.

Well, no kidding? If the players have been conditioned to believe they should only create optimal stats, then the game balance is hilariously in the players favour.

how is a 16 fully optimized? have you never played with a power gamer?

I mean I can get you think 14 is where the game is balanced (I just disagree) but I cna't understand where you are getting a 16 is fully optimized.

 

[Bolares]

Under performing, if the bar is set to 'fully optimized'.

No, underperforming if the bar is set in the same place the starter set pregens are.

But that doesn't really matter. In my experience a player's feel of balance is way more important than actual game balance. My players don't like the idea of having their primary stat lower than 16. So while racial ASI were a thing they were locked in making choices that could make them reach at least 16. I got rid of racial ASI's before Tasha's came out, because there was a need for it in my table. After that, their character creation choices were way more diverse and they felt that they could build any character they wanted without bein "punished".

Is that a matematical reality? No. But I'm not the one who will tell their feelings about the game are wrong and that they should play a wizard with a 14 Int. I adapted my game to my players needs (and lucky me, the game shifted in the same direction).

This is all tables reality? no. Everyone should and will be happy about this? no. But that's my reality.

I just don't like the false dichotomy that either you are ok with 14 stats or your are only trying to be fully optimized (not that there's anything wrong with optmizing).

I get why there were ASIs in the game, and they served that purpose well for some time, but there are other ways to acomplish those goals (the latest UA shows us there are ways to do it). I just hope WotC can adapt their design style to acomplish those goals well and make the most players possible happy with the game.

 

[Bolares]

how is a 16 fully optimized? have you never played with a power gamer?

I mean I can get you think 14 is where the game is balanced (I just disagree) but I cna't understand where you are getting a 16 is fully optimized.

Well, to be fair, the ceiling for optimizing stats in 5e is really low. 18 is almost impossible, and 16 is a given (if you combine well race and class)...

 

[Scribe]

how is a 16 fully optimized? have you never played with a power gamer?

I mean I can get you think 14 is where the game is balanced (I just disagree) but I cna't understand where you are getting a 16 is fully optimized.

Sorry, not even fully optimized.

I'm just talking at the most basic. Like Orc Fighter/Barb, Level 1, Standard Array.

17 may as well be 16 in terms of the calculation being discussed.

Going into various power builds just makes the 'balanced' discussion even more laughable.

 

[Scribe]

In my experience a player's feel of balance is way more important than actual game balance.

So just to be clear, I get you.

This simply SCREAMS to me however, what I hear all the time in various competitive games.

'No way am I a Gold Ranked players the match making system is broken!'

Players expectations of what is balanced, what their own performance is, are rarely tied to reality.

So I get you, I really do, but in talking about just mechanics, that 16 not only isn't required, but the poor expectation setting done in 5e has misrepresented to Players what they 'need' and it's had a negative influence on the perception of the game IMO.

I honestly wish I had looked at this year's ago. I always felt 16s made it too easy, and there it is staring at me the whole time.

 

[HammerMan]

Going into various power builds just makes the 'balanced' discussion even more laughable.

that is what I am saying... calling a 1pt difference "fully optimized" is crazy laughable. Especially since people are still rolling dice for stats (and following the rule even if it is a dumb rule).

People have had 20's to start for gosh sakes...

if you think that the difference between 16 and 14 is so big as to call it "Fully" optimized, then what does it say that WotC shows 16s?
Can you pull 1 example of a 14 prime stat on any pregen? that is all it takes to show you are at least in the ball park 1 pregen

 

[Scribe]

that is what I am saying... calling a 1pt difference "fully optimized" is crazy laughable. Especially since people are still rolling dice for stats (and following the rule even if it is a dumb rule).

People have had 20's to start for gosh sakes...

if you think that the difference between 16 and 14 is so big as to call it "Fully" optimized, then what does it say that WotC shows 16s?
Can you pull 1 example of a 14 prime stat on any pregen? that is all it takes to show you are at least in the ball park 1 pregen

No no, I was wrong to say fully optimized, got it.

Starting with a 20, would render the balance a joke.

I don't need a pregen to prove anything, I couldn't care less what Wizards has demonstrated as an example.

They WANT players to succeed.
They WANT players to feel heroic.

It's not heroic to some (most) to struggle. It's more heroic to some, to just cleave through the bad guys.

Well when you have a potential +7 at level 1? +8 with Bless?

LOL. Balanced.

 

[Bolares]

So I get you, I really do, but in talking about just mechanics, that 16 not only isn't required, but the poor expectation setting done in 5e has misrepresented to Players what they 'need' and it's had a negative influence on the perception of the game IMO.

I think it's not just that. 5e comes with the bagage of older editions. In 3e and 4e 16 would be a low stat for your primary stat. So a lot of players will think 14 is absurd...

In the end I don't think that math is a good reason to change the game, but seeing how things could be... there are a lot of better ways to represent physical differences in races other than ASIs.