D&D 5E Ability Scores Are Different Now?

[Majoru Oakheart]

What any version of D&D has yet to do is make the well-rounded character viable. Y'know, the one that starts with all 12's and 14s and and evenly distributes his stat bumps, so he's not actually bad in any one area.

I'd argue that someone who had a 14 in their prime stat is a perfectly viable character in 5e. The difference between a 14 and 20 in their prime stat is significant but it is not enough to make you lose battles unless you are facing very hard monsters.

 

[Mistwell]

If you build a character with less than a 16 in primary ability score you are hurting not only yourself but your whole team of fellow players. Your character has a job to do and if they can't hold their own, why in the world would the rest of the characters take you along on adventures. Now your job might not be damage dealing, but whatever it is it still uses one key ability score to be effective.

This has been true in all the past editions for the most part, and will always stay true. In 5e honestly with the feats we have seen so far it will almost always be the most optimal choice to increase your primary ability score up to 20 as fast as you can.

If your character doesn't hit, or if the monster resists your spell, you pretty much wasted your round. As always accuracy is key, and so are high spell save DC's. One of the reasons I like damage on miss effects or half effect spells is at least something happens.

Not everyone plays the type of game you play. With point buy going only to 15, what you're saying is if you don't take a race that matches your primary ability score in stat bumps, then you are hurting your whole team of fellow players. But, a lot of groups don't do that - and it doesn't hurt their games because their games are not run the way your games appear to be run.

People play halfling wizards (I have one in my game right now), and halfing clerics, and halfing fighters. They play Hill Dwarf fighters, and Dwarven wizards, and Dwarven rogues. They play Wood elf wizards, and high elf clerics, and elven fighters. And it's OK that they play these things, because they enjoy it, and the rest of the people playing with them enjoy it. It doesn't have to be optimized - optimization is an option, not a requirement. All those games out there without optimization are not imploding because they lack it.

 

[Dausuul]

What any version of D&D has yet to do is make the well-rounded character viable. Y'know, the one that starts with all 12's and 14s and and evenly distributes his stat bumps, so he's not actually bad in any one area. Which's kinda sad, actually, as a lot of genre and action heroes are often not the absolute strongest or fastest or toughest or smartest out there, but they are often reasonably strong, fast, tough, observant, smart & natural leaders - all at once. OTOH, there are serious specialists out there in genre & myth/legend, too. It'd be nice of D&D could some day figure out how to make 'em both work - to date, though, between class and handling stats it's always favored the specialist.

That's a really interesting question, actually. Within the 5E framework, what would be required to make an effective "stat generalist?"

In 5E, primary stats are crucial for two reasons. For casters, they set your save DCs and magic attack bonus. For noncasters, they set your weapon attack bonus and damage. It's notable that both of these are offensive uses. So just as things stand, you could make a pretty decent support caster without maxing your primary stat.

But that isn't really what "stat generalism" is about. It'd be nice if we could build someone like Tanis Half-Elven as a stat generalist: Not as strong as Caramon, not as smart as Raistlin, not as agile as Tasslehoff, not as wise as Goldmoon, just an all-around competent warrior type. Here's a thought:

Versatile Warrior (Feat). Whenever you make an attack roll, increase your ability score bonus on that roll by 2, up to a maximum of +5.

So let's say Caramon and Tanis are 6th-level fighters, who both started with Str 16 and Dex 14. Caramon gets two stat boosts and uses them to pump his Strength to 20. Tanis gets Versatile Warrior and raises his Dex to 16. They both have the same chance to hit, but Caramon is doing 2 more damage. On the other hand, Tanis can use a bow much better than Caramon, and he gets the other benefits of superior Dexterity as well.

 

[Tony Vargas]

CR 3 Ogres might not but if we're talking about CR 15 monster when you are level 20...there's certainly a possibility that they hit more often than some of the CR 20 monsters by having bigger bonuses.

Sure, but they're not 'much lower level,' in 3.5, as you know (but for the benefit of anyone who doesn't), a CR=PC level monster was meant to be a challenge, by itself. A CR -2 monster you could face two of, and it kept doubling per 2 CR lower. So a CR 15 monster is a perfectly reasonable thing to face at level 20 - if there are about a half-dozen of them. It's not 'far below your level,' but an Ogre, for instance, would be - though it is on the lower edge of useable. (Also consider that the PCs, even the melee-oriented ones, at level 20, could easily have a 5- or 10-pt gap in attack bonus, so a 5 level/CR difference could be eclipsed by that, alone.) So, yes, with 'only' a 5 CR difference, the vagaries of the CR system (and PC balance) do make it a toss-up whether it's going to be a real threat or not, able to hit with difficulty or easily. Take it out to 10+ CR differences, though, and even the uncertainty of the CR system is going to be overcome eventually.

The quick and dirty rules said to just add 1 for every level. But the reason it fell apart after about 5 levels is because 1 per level isn't correct(mostly because the extra 13 isn't spread out evenly amongst the levels and comes in bursts).

That's not exactly 'falling apart,' just not an exact 'treadmill.' On occasion you might have an even level where you upgrade an item, and bump a stat from odd to even and get a +3 "in one level," for instance. As with the inconsistency of CR, though, that's drowned out when you're talking a large (say 10+) level disparity, after which you're prettymuch looking for '1's and '20's again. As mentioned above, you can drag monsters back into the ballpark by changing secondary roles while holding exp value constant, but it's a tad unintuitive.

I'd argue that someone who had a 14 in their prime stat is a perfectly viable character in 5e. The difference between a 14 and 20 in their prime stat is significant but it is not enough to make you lose battles unless you are facing very hard monsters.

A 3-point swing is pretty significant. In 3.x, you might get away with it as the stat bonus is 'overwhelmed' by BAB and skill ranks and so forth. In 4e, you'd want to gravitate towards tricks like weapon attacks vs nACDs, effect lines, and outright handing your actions off.

In 5e you could avoid spells that grant saves (or at least, those negated by saves) or be very canny about always forcing your targets' worst saves, but that's seriously cutting into your effectiveness. Fighter multi-attacks would only serve to multiply the effect of the deficiency - though if you ever got Gauntlets of Ogre Power or a Belt of Giant STR you'd suddenly be just fine.

That's a really interesting question, actually. Within the 5E framework, what would be required to make an effective "stat generalist?"

The whole D&D paradigm - class & level, rewarding specialization, managing limited-use resources - seems to be set against it.

It'd be nice if we could build someone like Tanis Half-Elven as a stat generalist: Not as strong as Caramon, not as smart as Raistlin, not as agile as Tasslehoff, not as wise as Goldmoon, just an all-around competent warrior type. Here's a thought:

Versatile Warrior (Feat). Whenever you make an attack roll, increase your ability score bonus on that roll by 2, up to a maximum of +5.

So let's say Caramon and Tanis are 6th-level fighters, who both started with Str 16 and Dex 14. Caramon gets two stat boosts and uses them to pump his Strength to 20. Tanis gets Versatile Warrior and raises his Dex to 16. They both have the same chance to hit, but Caramon is doing 2 more damage. On the other hand, Tanis can use a bow much better than Caramon, and he gets the other benefits of superior Dexterity as well.

I guess that addresses one aspect of the problem.

Maybe something like letting certain characters or certain sorts of spells or weapons use two stats instead of one? Such as combining STR + DEX for attack rolls (to a maximum of +5), so you'd want a 14 and a 16, and you'd be good? Of course you could /start/ with a 14 & 16, but not a 20, so it'd have to be level-delayed for the sake of balance...

Or something similar in stat-pairs for saves?

I don't know, if it were easy, they'd've done it by now.

 

[Psikerlord#]

I know Its en vogue to hate on 4e here, but 4e doesn't have a stat treadmill. You get 8 points of prime stat increases over 30 levels or 10 with a good ED with 3 and 5(ED) of those coming in Epic. Thats EXACTLY the same number that 5e hands out in its 20 levels., and 5e hands them out faster....

Just for the record I liked 4e well enough, although I like 13th Age better. But the treadmill was definitely there imo.

 

[Tormyr]

Generally in all editions of D&D, it was pretty hard for much-lower-level (HD in AD&D) monsters to hit you, at all. We're talking natural 20s. In AD&D that was dependent on the random treasure tables coughing up the right magic armor, shields, and other protective devices, while in 3.x & 4e there were wealth/level guidelines that more or less assured you'd get those (and both eds also eventually featured fairly simple options to do away with 'item dependence' for things like attack & AC).

Conversely, you could mop 'em up pretty quickly. Casters could sweep them away with AEs, and AD&D fighters got 1 attack /per level every round/ against less-than-1-HD monsters, while 3e fighters could have WWA or Great Cleave feat-trees completed, and 4e fighters had some Close burst powers.

The one exception to that was that, in 4e, a much-lower-level monster could be re-statted as a 10-levels-higher, but same exp-value, 'minion' (a one-hit-kills monster, with level-appropriate attacks & defenses but fixed damage). That trick resulted in a decidedly lesser enemy that could have a reasonable chance of hitting you or being missed, but could still be quickly dealt with (again, as with contemptible foes in all eds, preferably with an AE of somekind).


In 5e, the design philosophy of 'bounded accuracy' finally settled on giving proficiency bonuses of +2 to +6 over 20 levels, so that's about the variance you'd expect. A monster that you hit on a 13 at 1st level, you'd hit on a 9 or less at 20th (possibly a lot less if your stats have gone up and you have a powerful magic weapon). Similarly, if you have some magic armor or other defenses and/or your DEX went up, it'll have a harder time hitting you. The original idea was not to have any progress at all, just more hps and damage. The final form, though, gives you a sense of progress if you go back and swing at a monster that you used to fight when you were an apprentice, while leaving you some chance of missing, and it some chance of hitting, without necessarily invoking natural 1 or 20 rules.

That is what I thought was the case. Between that and the Age of Worms conversion I am doing, I can see where the concept of a "treadmill" comes in. The numbers just keep going up, and a lower level character has no chance of doing stuff at later levels or if they are untrained. Some of the History checks go up to DC 35. I am assuming that would be possible for some characters but probably none at level 1 (unless you can find the 35 on the d20). In 5e, a character with expertise in History at level 20 could attain a 30 with a really good roll, but that is about it.

In 5e, even a low level character gets a minimum of +2 in a proficient weapon, and most CR1/4 characters get a +4 to hit. So they have roughly a 20% chance (or maybe even 25% chance) to hit most high level characters. I think the bounded accuracy is evidence of getting off the ability score treadmill. There is still the possibility of low level characters contributing at a higher level even if the chance is a little bit lower.

Using the example from the History check, a hard DC20 check would need a 20 die roll from an untrained character with no Int bonus even if they were level 20. A level 1 character trained in History with a +3 to Int would need a 15 while the same character at level 20 with a +5 Int modifier would only need a 9. That it is still reasonably possible for a trained level 1 character and only about twice as easy for a maxed out character coupled with the absence of really high DC and AC values makes me feel that the "treadmill" has gone away.

 

[Crothian]

I'd argue that someone who had a 14 in their prime stat is a perfectly viable character in 5e. The difference between a 14 and 20 in their prime stat is significant but it is not enough to make you lose battles unless you are facing very hard monsters.

These type of characters were pretty common in the 1e and 2e games I played in. Heck back then we didn't even get automatic increases to ability scores! Those were the days.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The numbers just keep going up, and a lower level character has no chance of doing stuff at later levels or if they are untrained. Some of the History checks go up to DC 35. I am assuming that would be possible for some characters but probably none at level 1 (unless you can find the 35 on the d20). In 5e, a character with expertise in History at level 20 could attain a 30 with a really good roll, but that is about it.

Skill checks are a whole 'nuther thing.

In classic D&D there weren't even skills at first, then you got some classes with 'special' abilities like tracking and hiding in shadows/moving silent &c, that were, in effect, skills. They started out pretty low to just appallingly and became more or less dependable by mid levels. If you didn't have the special ability, too bad. So, if you didn't have 'move silently,' you never got stealthier, no matter how many years you spent sneaking around dungeons.

In later AD&D they added 'non weapon proficiencies,' which (like everything in AD&D) used their own quixotic mechanic - this time it was rolling /under/ an associated stat on a d20. Also not affected by level, though you could take the same proficiency repeatedly to get better at it. The funny thing was, thieves and the like still had their starting at 20% or so 'special' abilities, but the corresponding 'roll under your DEX' checks would succeed half the time if you just had an average DEX.

That rather naturally became 'ranks' in 3e, which is probably the height of skill disparities. There were a lot of skills and you only got so many ranks to spend each level (from 2 for the lowly fighter up to 8 for a Rogue). If you dropped a rank in a skill every level, kept boosting the associated stat, took feats and items to be better at it, you could /automatically/ make a 35 DC well before reaching 20th level. OTOH, if your stat was 10 and you never put a rank in the skill, you never got in better at it, even if you used it 'untrained' all the time in your adventuring career. So you could very easily have some characters with a +0 (or even negative) skill check, even at 20th level, and others with a +40 or more.

4e reined that in a little. Instead of ranks, everybody just added 1/2 level to skills. Being 'trained' added a +5, and you added stats or racials - there was also the odd feat (that didn't stack with other feats) and the odd item (that didn't stack with other items and didn't add a huge bonus). The result was that most characters had a good chance of making an 'easy' check at their level, and that moderate checks were within reach if you were trained or had a good stat. So it was much easier to include skill use without tuning it to the hyper-specialized or hopeless members of the party.

I think the bounded accuracy is evidence of getting off the ability score treadmill. There is still the possibility of low level characters contributing at a higher level even if the chance is a little bit lower.

The treadmill is really just an illusion that comes from assuming you'll always face exactly same-level challenges. When ever you 'go back' or 'skip ahead' and face something under- or over-leveled, you see just how much you've advanced and how much further you could go.

The original concept of bounded accuracy was no bonus for leveling at all (just more hps and damage). The problem with that was that when you 'went back' to a lower-level challenge, it was just as hard to hit (whether you're talking AC or skill DCs), and you realized you hadn't really advanced. Fortunately, they finally settled on a narrow range of advancement: +2 to +6 over 20 levels.

 

[pemerton]

With a certain playstyle...yes.

Not everyone plays the type of game you play.

The thing is, this is equally true for 4e. (And 3E, as far as I know.) You can build a fully viable 4e character with a 16 prime stat at 1st level. (I know, because my 4e campaign had such a character, who is now about to reach 27th level.)

It's true that in 4e you have to boost your prime stat every N levels, but that's just a feature of 4e's version of bounded accuracy. In 5e, the equivalent approach to PC building would be to never boost your prime stat and instead take feats at every opportunity.

 

[evileeyore]

If you build a character with less than a 16 in primary ability score you are hurting not only yourself but your whole team of fellow players.

What a "special" perspective you have.

One I'm happy is not shared at the table I play at.