Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 4682013" data-attributes="member: 82106">Yeah, but given that PCs all have basically equivalence in total stats, if it were possible to apply any stat to providing a bonus in any given activity, then all characters would pretty much end up with equal ability at everything. In a 'realism' sense it might be more accurate, but it would sort of make all characters pretty uniform, and that would be boring. All I'm suggesting is any character can find a good use for most any stat. Some more than others of course.Another interesting thing to consider is the COST of min/maxing. Certainly a fighter with high CON and STR and a decent DEX is going to be the most effective fighter, at low levels, but he'll also on average have less total stat points. That asks the question, is it actually a good idea to start out with the 'typical' kind of build out? IE is a fighter with 18 CON, 14 STR, and 11 DEX at 1st level really the best character to have? He'll do better in a fight at 1st level, but once you get a few stat bonuses, say in the upper heroic levels and up, the guy that started with 14,13,13 will have overall higher numbers because he starts with 79 total stat points vs 71 for the min/max guy. Sure the min/max guy is now up to 20 CON, 16 STR, but the more evenly distributed guy will have a 16 and a 15, AND his other defenses are better, he can take practically any feat, etc. The advantage would just grow as you hit paragon levels and up. Each character gets 24 bonus stat points through 28th level, so by that point certainly the evenly distributed character is ahead in all likelyhood. It is a somewhat difficult call. For a 'one off' character it would be better to min/max, but in a long running campaign, maybe not...</blockquote>

Verification