D&D General here's how to stop jealousy in between lucky players and unlucky ones

[ECMO3]

I guess I will just disagree with this. The most common check I see in campaigns that are even combat focused are skill checks, which use a variety of abilities.

Yes but an extra skill proficiency is worth 4 points on that skills ability at 1st level, rising to 12 points at 20th level. The good races have more skill proficiencies or abilities that let them auto succeed, do the checks for less cost or get advantages on those checks, when others wouldn't.

For example:

Damphir gets 2 extra skill proficiencies in addition to being able to climb walls like a spider (bypassing very common athletics checks for climbing) and doing it at a 35 move without using an action.

Similarly a Shadar-Kai or Eladrin, have an extra skill proficiency, and can teleport both to escape grapples and often when other characters would have to make an athletics check to climb. Additionally they can do it as a bonus action, so instead of making an athletics check to escape a grapple, it is an auto success and they still have an action, and a Summer Eladrin can put a charm on with the teleport, potentially giving her advantage on any following charisma checks she uses with her action.

Any of the flying races rarely need to pass a climibing check at all.

A Goblin with a 10 dexterity is going to better at hiding in combat than a Wizard or Fighter of another race with a 16 because she can hide as a bonus action every turn, allowing a second check as a bonus action if she fails the first time.

Now yes, there are some classes that are just not as good as others. That, however, isn't something for ability scores to fix. That's for the designers.

I don't think it needs to be fixed at all, and there is as much disparity in the races and many of the subclasses as there is in the classes.

I guess IME differences in ability scores is a balance concern in a bad way a lot less often than imbalance in the classes, subclasses or races.

 

[SteveC]

Yes but an extra skill proficiency is worth 4 points on that skills ability at 1st level, rising to 12 points at 20th level. The good races have more skill proficiencies or abilities that let them auto succeed, do the checks for less cost or get advantages on those checks, when others wouldn't.

Just like with class, the choice of race (or species? Is that what's being used now?) is entirely separated from stats now. So you could have an amazing set of ability scores, pick a powerful species, and then select a powerful class. There's nothing to keep you from doing that other than some GM enforced set of fairness.

And further: if there are species that are just "better", that's another rule issue that needs to be addressed.

The problem we run into comes from the bounded accuracy system: if you have an excellent ability score, you're going to be good with those checks across the entire campaign because the check DCs are going to be reasonably static. The character with a strong score will just be better at what the game has you engage with.

And I'll just say to be complete: not everyone cares about this. I do believe, however, that caring about this has become the default opinion for a while now: we don't roll for many things about building a character, just rather what you do as a character. Compare that to AD&D where you might end up with a 1 HP character.

 

[ECMO3]

Just like with class, the choice of race (or species? Is that what's being used now?) is entirely separated from stats now. So you could have an amazing set of ability scores, pick a powerful species, and then select a powerful class. There's nothing to keep you from doing that other than some GM enforced set of fairness.

Exactly, that is the whole point. The variance in scores is not particularly meaningful when players power is primarily driven by race.

The character you describe is much more powerful mostly because you let him pick a powerful class and race, not becausre you let him roll and he got lucky.

The problem we run into comes from the bounded accuracy system: if you have an excellent ability score, you're going to be good with those checks across the entire campaign because the check DCs are going to be reasonably static. The character with a strong score will just be better at what the game has you engage with.

Not really true. Characters playing strong races and strong classes will be good across the entire game because they can auto succeed or have more proficiencies. Characters with strong races and classes and abilities will be even stronger yet.

If you really wanted to ensure a level playing field you would have different abilities for different races and classes. Say 20 points as your base point buy, then 5 more if you play a fighter, Monk or Barbarian and then 4 more after that if you play a weak race.

So your Shaddar Kai Wizard would have a 20-point buy and your Rock Gnome Monk would have a 31 point buy. Then you would have some semblance of balance I suppose, but I think focusing on abilities when other things are more unbalancing is not particularly effective.

 

[Redwizard007]

Personally, I prefer point buy, but my players like to roll. If we want even PCs, we roll one set of stats for the whole group to use, and then I give them a free +2 (or several +2s) to get to the power level I want to play at. That way players can take feats, run monks that are more than cannon fodder, or multi-class without being hamstrung by bad scores.