Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ChrisCarlson" data-source="post: 6833009" data-attributes="member: 6801216">Isolating one-third of the game's focus seems a flawed perspective when discussing what characters need/want. But okay.So end-game level characters...Again, what about the other two-thirds of the game?I could argue Con is more important to full casters. Due not only to concentration, but because a Con bonus is a greater percentage increase to their HPs as a result of their having small HD.Only when you presuppose the kind of cleric and the kind of paladin.Your use of "suboptimal" has me here. The way you are using it, a 14 in any score is suboptimal to a 20. For any character.Pretty obvious. Or, more specifically, some class builds do not use physical attack scores in general. But that doesn't mean they don't benefit from having them. As everyone would.This is not correct, based on my experiences with 5e thus far. Or maybe I'm just misunderstanding your point. Please elaborate.I've addressed that already as well (and beyond into other aspects of play). No, you do not need to max out your various "primary" combat stats to be effective. Not even close.No, again, I'm talking about both issues. Because they are related. Once one stops looking at 5e though previous edition lenses, they will find the system does not need them to have 20s for combat. Which means more room to spread their character out to enjoy the other two-thirds of the game.Most aren't, IMX.I wish people would stop trying to cram square pegs (3e/4e optimization) into round holes (5e) and then complaining that they can't make good characters.I offer an experiment. Make a paladin or barbarian with no final score above a 14. Play it for a few levels. See how it goes. I'd be surprised if you weren't surprised at how much more forgiving 5e is on stat scores.</blockquote>

Verification