Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Warpiglet-7" data-source="post: 9825590" data-attributes="member: 7025282">Really appreciate this topic!  Also an opportunity to type on my new Christmas present <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I often think about what score is “needed” to get by in game…I frequently buck traditional wisdom and feel free to spread scores around and take feats…meaning I feel fine taking a 16 into higher levels.  I have a powerful warlock barbarian at 13th level and am just fine with 16 in str and cha!  In terms of overall balance…we are not arguing about higher is better in most situations.  My debate is about the power of placement.  I don’t think all arrays are equally “powerful.”  A build or array with a higher score in the main attack stat of course makes a difference. I have done fine with 16s until mid high level several times.  Why not push to 20?  Because I value some spread and thinks it matters.  Example:Would i prefer a 20 in strength for a fighter without a con bonus vs. a smaller strength bonus and an additional con bonus?  I think the con bonus with a smaller strength bonus makes sense when foes can hit hard.  Cannot use high strength if you are dead.  So I think a spread of several medium bonuses is better than one really big one…as a er result, I don’t think all arrays are equivalent for adventuring effectiveness.  In that, I DO NOT think all arrays are balanced.  And I love having the option to choose.</blockquote>

Verification