D&D 5E Assumptions about character creation

[Warpiglet-7]

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...

 

[commandercrud]

Hardly anyone actually rolls anymore, and if they do, they keep rerolling until they get what they want. Anytime I suggest rolling, people just stare like I'm insane. Then bitch when I don't let them reroll 1s or reroll all 6 or whatever. It's shameful.

It is most definitely less lethal than early editions.

 

[Oofta]

The only thing I know about is the "Quick Build" advice in the PHB where it says where to put your highest score and next highest. But even that is just general advice.

As far as "needing" a 16, that's just a personal preference disguised as a requirement.

 

[commandercrud]

Once, a friend and I were making characters for a one shot con game. He flipped out when I put a 13 in my prime stat. "I won't play with you if you do that!"

 

[R_J_K75]

Hardly anyone actually rolls anymore, and if they do, they keep rerolling until they get what they want. Anytime I suggest rolling, people just stare like I'm insane. Then bitch when I don't let them reroll 1s or reroll all 6 or whatever. It's shameful.

It is most definitely less lethal than early editions.

I never allow people to pick scores. They have to roll...period.

 

[jgsugden]

They balance around a +2 or +3 bonus in the prime attribute. However, the game does not break if you have anything between a +1 and +5 in it.

 

[R_J_K75]

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

I had never heard of bounded accuracy until I started reading the message boards. Im still not totally clear on what is it and at this point dont really care. But if this is truly the premise on which the math of the game is based itd have been nice that it was stated and briefly explained somewhere in the core books, which as far as I know it is not specifically. Might be alluded to or implied.

 

[commandercrud]

Bounded accuracy = shrinking the number range so weak monsters stay viable longer and rules breaking happens a bit less.

In other words, WOTC's way of "fixing" D&D.

 

[R_J_K75]

Bounded accuracy = shrinking the number range so weak monsters stay viable longer and rules breaking happens a bit less.

In other words, WOTC's way of "fixing" D&D.

How do magical items play into this? As I understand the game is built so PCs dont need to acquire them as they advance to defeat higher level threats.

 

[commandercrud]

How do magical items play into this? As I understand the game is built so PCs dont need to acquire them as they advance to defeat higher level threats.

I've heard that too, but it's complete nonsense. They absolutely do expect magic items. There's even a chart somewhere, in DMG I think, that shows how many they expect PCs to have got by tier.