D&D 5E I feel like there is a problem with ability score bonuses.

[The Crimson Binome]

I am almost always on the DM side of the screen but I have noticed something common to almost al PC's. They have a 16 or better, usually better, in their main attack stat. This is true regardless of the method for character generation. I don't know why it bothers me or if it should but when every scorcerer is charismatic, every wizard intelligent every, rogue nimble and every barbarian strong and always within a 4 point threshold it messes with my chi (eg. qi).

I'm not sure how long you've been DMing, but if you play to high levels (and especially if you don't use feats), you may notice that every barbarian has exactly 20 Strength and every warlock has exactly 20 Charisma. The alternative is that some characters would just be objectively less powerful and less useful than some other characters, and that's not very much fun for most people.

For as long as stats have been important (since at least 3E), players have been doing their best to maximize their prime stat. The only difference with 5E is that now they cap everything out at 20, so wizards are able to develop their other stats eventually, instead of being compelled to improve only their Int forever.

 

[Caliburn101]

It is the main issue with a system that grossly oversimplifies the stat/skill relationship.

Dex actually has FAR more to do with your skill to hit things in combat than Str in reality. Str increases raw force which equates to damage.

Precision (from your skill and Dex) also aids increased damage.

In reality, both Str and Dex should determine chance to hit AND damage with skill added on top for BOTH.

Too nuanced for D&D though, even in an age where creating auto-calc. characters sheets which could do the calculations behind these contributions to what number you are rolling against and what effect it has, can and should be the norm.

People like simple, like a system where armour makes you harder to hit and doesn't absorb damage, like in reality, and a system of Shrodingers Hit Points, where they simultaneously 'are' and 'are not' physical damage, and where you are either performing at 100% or down and dying, all determined by that last HP.

No point having a problem with the inevitable consequences of a simplistic system really...

 

[Warmaster Horus]

Did you ever look at the Offensive Line for the Seattle Seahawks and wonder that?

 

[Dausuul]

It's a feel thing so I could be wrong.(even if it wasn't I could be wrong too)

I am almost always on the DM side of the screen but I have noticed something common to almost al PC's. They have a 16 or better, usually better, in their main attack stat. This is true regardless of the method for character generation. I don't know why it bothers me or if it should but when every scorcerer is charismatic, every wizard intelligent every, rogue nimble and every barbarian strong and always within a 4 point threshold it messes with my chi (eg. qi).

The shy and retiring sorcerers, the stupid wizards, the clumsy rogues, and the weak barbarians all got killed before reaching 1st level. Adventuring is dangerous. If you're not good at what you do, you're not gonna last long.

 

[ccs]

Oh I agree that there's something wrong with the stat bonuses.
There has been for 17 years now....

 

[pukunui]

This reminds me, though, that last session, Meepo the kobold sidekick leaped onto the back of an allosaurus that was attempting to eat one of the PCs and stabbed it to death with a dagger. Afterwards, we all agreed that he needed to have one level of barbarian, despite having a -2 penalty to Strength.

 

[Sunseeker]

I feel like we need a 4th thread for this. Maybe 4 more threads. Monthly, at a bare minimum.

 

[GMMichael]

People like simple, like a system where armour makes you harder to hit and doesn't absorb damage, like in reality, and a system of Shrodingers Hit Points, where they simultaneously 'are' and 'are not' physical damage, and where you are either performing at 100% or down and dying, all determined by that last HP.

XP for Schroedinger's Hit Points.

Another problem is any ability score generation method other than roll 3d6. You can't put your 16 or higher in your class's prime ability if you don't have a 16 or higher.

Another problem is character death rules. Your players might not min-max their characters so much if they knew that they had very little chance of actually dying in the game.

Another problem is classes. If they weren't designed to favor one ability...

 

[Wulffolk]

One of the main contributing factors in 5e is that your Ability modifier is now more important than what level you are. In early editions your level usually made a bigger difference than the Ability. It takes a long time in 5e before your Proficiency Bonus means as much as your Ability modifier.

The current problem is a result of Bounded Accuracy. The difference between a +3 Strength and a +5 Strength would be much less noticeable if the Fighter was still getting +1 to hit EVERY level instead of only a 4 point spread after 20 levels.

 

[Sunseeker]

Another problem is character death rules. Your players might not min-max their characters so much if they knew that they had very little chance of actually dying in the game.

As a powergamer, I agree with this. I know I'm much more willing to "experiment" with odd combinations in RP heavy games with minimal combat.

There's still a desire to "win" at what I do (ie: beat the DCs, get the loot, save the princess) regardless of if it's combat or face time. But its certainly lesser.