D&D 5E The tyranny of small numbers

[Micah Sweet]

I think that is a small minority that has problems finding anyone who wants to play with them.
In my small experience, a 14, 16 or 18 as a main ability score only matters, if another players has a different (higher) score, especially when they fill the same part role (like a barbarian and a melee fighter were one is the way better tank).
That's why I as a DM only allow standard array or point buy going forward. That also helps tremendously with encounter balance, because the math is based and balanced around starting main stats ranging from 14 to 16.

I agree in principle. Unfortunately, point buy is a no-go for some groups (including mine).

 

[Minigiant]

Too much single-ability dependency. A Strength-based fighter can do perfectly fine with Dex 8, because heavy armor removes Dexterity from the AC equation, and javelins make perfectly cromulent weapons at moderate distances. A caster "needs" to pump their casting stat above all else, because they get both prepared spells, spell attack, and spell DC from it.

This is a big one. 5e is most full of Single Ability Dependent classes. Most classes line up to the 7-9 roles of a party.

However some classes are most dependent than others.And Most roles are lined upwith one or two ability scores. And not evenly.

 

[tetrasodium]

Right, instead I think most people are more like myself. I WILL pick more potent mechanical solutions, but it isn't going to happen at the expense of RP.

So, for instance, the last 5e game I played in I created this Tabaxi street urchin character (why I don't know, I did, it was a year or two ago) but I had this idea that the character would be really fascinated with magic, but he's a kind of street fighting scrabbling sort of creature. So, I thought I'd probably make him become an Eldritch Knight, but it didn't seem to fit well with Tabaxi or whatnot, so instead I just made up this story where the character stole a 'magic book' and it taught him 'fighting tricks', so he's mechanically a Battlemaster. Because he found some magical +1 claws I expediently picked TWF as a fighting style. So, its not like incredibly optimized, but I did pick certain things based on "this is mechanically better" vs story, and the character is PRETTY good, mechanically. His story required a bit of reflavoring of maneuvers as 'magic' but everyone was just like "whatever, go for it." I mean, apparently his flavor of magic doesn't run into big problems with anti-magic, maybe because its internal. Maybe someone would get steamed about that, but whatever.

The point really is that this is probably pretty typical for a LARGE segment of players in my long experience playing FRPGs. Most players don't totally min/max and might make some sub-optimal choices, but to a great degree when faced with a better and a worse choice mechanically, they will either work out a thematic interpretation of the better choice, or reflavor something. Now and then they'll make a sub-optimal choice if it really matters.

That depends on what is the most mechanically potent. Which of these is a "better" array mechanically?

Spoiler

• 18 12 12 12 10 3
• 15 15 8 8 7 7
• 14 14 14 11 7 5
• 17 14 7 7 7 7
• 14 13 12 9 8 7

Those big negatives aren't something you just shrug off when it comes time to make an associated check

 

[Charlaquin]

That depends on what is the most mechanically potent. Which of these is a "better" array mechanically?

Spoiler

• 18 12 12 12 10 3
• 15 15 8 8 7 7
• 14 14 14 11 7 5
• 17 14 7 7 7 7
• 14 13 12 9 8 7

Those big negatives aren't something you just shrug off when it comes time to make an associated check

I feel like the first one is obviously the best between the options…

 

[Micah Sweet]

I feel like the first one is obviously the best between the options…

Yeah, I'd take the 18 with the 3 any day. Somebody will cover that low stat.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That depends on what is the most mechanically potent. Which of these is a "better" array mechanically?

Spoiler

• 18 12 12 12 10 3
• 15 15 8 8 7 7
• 14 14 14 11 7 5
• 17 14 7 7 7 7
• 14 13 12 9 8 7

Those big negatives aren't something you just shrug off when it comes time to make an associated check

All of them suck, but the first sucks the least. It's the one easiest to mitigate the concerns: put that 3 into Intelligence and you're fully functional (albeit very poor at logical evaluation and memory.) Wisdom could also work, since you can almost always depend on someone else to be observant, and being recklessly foolish can be fun--you're just at high risk of being mind-controlled.

Edit: We could also look at these via their sum-of-modifiers. In order, those are: +3, -2, +1, -3, 0. Clearly, the first array, despite having one HORRIBLE stat, is the best of the bunch.

Now, let's try tweaking it so all of them have +2 as their sum-of-modifiers:

• 18 12 12 12 9 3
• 15 15 12 12 7 7
• 14 14 14 11 9 5
• 17 14 11 10 9 7
• 14 13 12 11 10 9

All of these arrays keep the same highest stat, and all except the last have the same lowest stat. I have, obviously, made all of them except the first (especially the fourth) significantly better than they were before, and made the first very slightly worse so I didn't have to make bigger changes. And now it's a lot harder to pick out a clear worst option! A character with +1 to 3 stats could turn the first array into [19, 12, 12, 12, 10, 4] which still clearly has a nasty weakness, but is overall solid. Pick up a useful half-feat at level 4, especially if you're a SAD character, and you're good to go--even better if you're, say, a half-elf because that means you could start with [20, 12, 12, 12, 10, 4] and could thus either mitigate that 4, grab cool feats, or boost some of those secondary stats with each ASI.

The fifth array is pretty weak, but comes with the benefit that you can have zero penalties if you like. Generally more useful to do something like [16, 14, 12, 11, 10, 9] with your racial stats, but [14, 14, 12, 12, 10, 10] isn't totally awful, just weak. Given these arrays, my preferences would likely be the first, fourth, or second. The third array is good for particularly MAD characters who can afford to dump something (probably Int), but I don't tend to have much interest in super-MAD characters.

 

[tetrasodium]

I feel like the first one is obviously the best between the options…

Sure, an 18 and feels that a single attribute with a -4 penalty from that single 3 is acceptable, but that's picking from a list of arrays not building your own array

Spoiler: what else is after the 18 what are the other 5 to balance it out?

Make it total zero or les for cost.

Depending on the GM's goal, maybe complicate things by requiring at least one ten or requiring that none of the numbers be reused. When everyone at the table is doing that it's not so

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Sure, an 18 and feels that a single attribute with a -4 penalty from that single 3 is acceptable, but that's picking from a list of arrays not building your own array

Spoiler: what else is after the 18 what are the other 5 to balance it out?

Make it total zero or les for cost.
View attachment 252524

Depending on the GM's goal, maybe complicate things by requiring at least one ten or requiring that none of the numbers be reused. When everyone at the table is doing that it's not so

As noted above, there's more to it than just "an 18 balances out a 3." You may have intended the arrays to all be essentially equal, but you accidentally made the first array significantly better than the others. Tweaking them so they've got the same sum-of-modifiers makes it a more difficult choice.

Part of the problem is, 5e is just as bad as 3e was with making some stats simply more desirable and other stats not particularly useful. Intelligence only matters for characters who expect to make Int-based skill checks, or Int saves. There are only 12 spells that inflict an Int save in 5e, and one of them (contact other plane) isn't even an offensive spell, while another (enemies abound) is a relatively weak control spell (since the save is repeated). The damage, from those that do damage, isn't particularly dramatic compared to their level, and some such spells (like illusory dragon) offer the opportunity to get Advantage on the save if you realize the result isn't fully real. Very few monsters (mostly psionic ones, which are themselves rarely used) inflict Intelligence saves, though sadly I don't have a good bead on exactly how many there are now. Back in 2019 there were only a very small number, apparently four (intellect devourer and mindflayer being the two primary ones, though both have very nasty results on failure.)

As a result, Intelligence is by far the easiest stat to dump, so long as you aren't a Wizard or Artificer. Charisma, likewise, is very easy to dump if your class doesn't use it, and its saves tend to be less dangerous than Intelligence (which, while rare, can be devastating). Wisdom is dangerous to dump for multiple reasons (Perception is always amazing, and these saves tend to resist mind control effects.) Strength can be safely dumped...so long as you can still carry your equipment, though early in the game, Str saves are common and can result in "pack"-style creatures laying on a lot of pain. Dexterity and Constitution are both extremely common saves and have major secondary benefits, so you pretty much never want to dump them.

So you can pretty easily get away with something like 18 14 10 10 8 3, especially if you're a Hexblade or a pure Cha caster (Bard/Sorcerer) where you don't need more than minimal Str and can safely dump Int completely. And by your own numbers, that array is actually worth a minuscule score (42+11-1-1-7-42 = 11 - 9 = 2).

 

[tetrasodium]

As noted above, there's more to it than just "an 18 balances out a 3." You may have intended the arrays to all be essentially equal, but you accidentally made the first array significantly better than the others. Tweaking them so they've got the same sum-of-modifiers makes it a more difficult choice.

Part of the problem is, 5e is just as bad as 3e was with making some stats simply more desirable and other stats not particularly useful. Intelligence only matters for characters who expect to make Int-based skill checks, or Int saves. There are only 12 spells that inflict an Int save in 5e, and one of them (contact other plane) isn't even an offensive spell, while another (enemies abound) is a relatively weak control spell (since the save is repeated). The damage, from those that do damage, isn't particularly dramatic compared to their level, and some such spells (like illusory dragon) offer the opportunity to get Advantage on the save if you realize the result isn't fully real. Very few monsters (mostly psionic ones, which are themselves rarely used) inflict Intelligence saves, though sadly I don't have a good bead on exactly how many there are now. Back in 2019 there were only a very small number, apparently four (intellect devourer and mindflayer being the two primary ones, though both have very nasty results on failure.)

As a result, Intelligence is by far the easiest stat to dump, so long as you aren't a Wizard or Artificer. Charisma, likewise, is very easy to dump if your class doesn't use it, and its saves tend to be less dangerous than Intelligence (which, while rare, can be devastating). Wisdom is dangerous to dump for multiple reasons (Perception is always amazing, and these saves tend to resist mind control effects.) Strength can be safely dumped...so long as you can still carry your equipment, though early in the game, Str saves are common and can result in "pack"-style creatures laying on a lot of pain. Dexterity and Constitution are both extremely common saves and have major secondary benefits, so you pretty much never want to dump them.

So you can pretty easily get away with something like 18 14 10 10 8 3, especially if you're a Hexblade or a pure Cha caster (Bard/Sorcerer) where you don't need more than minimal Str and can safely dump Int completely. And by your own numbers, that array is actually worth a minuscule score (42+11-1-1-7-42 = 11 - 9 = 2).

Yea 5e is just as bad if not worse than 3.x with how much it rewards making a character with one or two good stats at no real cost for a dump stat or two. I think it's probably worse because of how bounded accuracy giving a flat curve and how the massive overuse of advantage combine to exacerbate it. My point is that the excessively generous 4d6keep3 allotment takes that a step further by ensuring that there is no available choice that might result in some other type of optimization to further ensure one true style.

Edit: the elite array is too good in the places a pc needs and perfectly adequate everywhere else so there is no meaningful loss, that's also an array that would be very over budget with a 3d6 based pointbuy

 

[Bill Zebub]

I have felt for a while, that ability scores do not make sense if they're viewed like most of this board does.

If every character of given class is expected to have the same main ability score or constitution score at a given level, why is it a choice in the first place? If the class effectively dictates your ability scores, why are we pretending they're a choice, why are we pretending they represent individual variation? In such a paradigm they can't. It would be far more logical to get rid of ability scores then, and just have the classes provide the expected level appropriate bonuses.

It is not exactly what I would want, but it would be far more honest than pretending there is a choice and that they represent different characters being different, if in practice your class effectively dictates the score placement.

So seriously stop to think: what is the purpose of ability scores and what do they represent?

I agree with the criticism that in 5e has managed to homogenize stats.

However, I don't think the problem is about what players are "expected" to have, it's that the rules have become deterministic (that is, you choose, instead of rolling dice) and highly focused on primary class ability scores, and so the sensible decision is to max out your primary ability score, which happens to be what nearly everybody else using the same rules is doing.

I almost always make new characters with a 16 or 17 in their primary ability not because anybody at the table (or on the Internet?) expects me too, but because that's the highest number that the rules will let me start with, and maxing out that score makes for a more effective character, which I find more fun to play.

If the rules maxed out at 14/15, that's what I'd do. 18/19? That's what I'd do.

There's nothing magic about the 16, and it's not about expectations.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yea 5e is just as bad if not worse than 3.x with how much it rewards making a character with one or two good stats at no real cost for a dump stat or two. I think it's probably worse because of how bounded accuracy giving a flat curve and how the massive overuse of advantage combine to exacerbate it. My point is that the excessively generous 4d6keep3 allotment takes that a step further by ensuring that there is no available choice that might result in some other type of optimization to further endhriithr one true style.

Edit: the elite array is too good in the places a pc needs and perfectly adequate everywhere else so there is no meaningful loss, that's also an array that would be very over budget with a 3d6 based pointbuy

Yeah, I pretty much agree with you on all counts, other than the last one. 5e wanted things simplified, and it very much succeeded at that goal. Unfortunately, a fair number of the secondary consequences of that goal are not as desirable as the designers originally expected.

Personally, I think it is more interesting when there are enough points such that you can be good at whatever you're supposed to be good at, and then also above-average at some other thing unrelated to what you're supposed to be good at if you so choose, or "so okay it's average" at all the other things. I felt 4e's system was pretty much perfect on that front. Even an "incorrect" race (note quotes) could easily achieve a 16 in its main attack stat, which might not be great but is perfectly workable if you adapt to it. When you combine that the Fort/Ref/Will defenses taking the highest of two stats (Str/Con, Dex/Int, and Wis/Cha respectively), you get a situation where most characters will have at least one weakness (because you can't really advance more than 2 stats), but not so glaring a weakness that it becomes a massive liability.

13th Age also does some good stuff on that front via its Background rules, which allow for more flavorful, character-specific, and "natural" skill usage, rather than the sometimes clunky aspects of the existing system. E.g. it can be difficult to insert things like "Engineer" into the existing system, but "Former Chief Engineer Assigned to Drakkenhall +4" is perfect for that. Or the various and sundry things that "Imperial Drill Sergeant +3" or "Court of Stars Courtier (and Courtesan) +5" imply.

However, I don't think the problem is about what players are "expected" to have, it's that the rules have become deterministic (that is, you choose, instead of rolling dice) and highly focused on primary class ability scores, and so the sensible decision is to max out your primary ability score, which happens to be what nearly everybody else using the same rules is doing.

While I overall grant the point from the rest of your post (people settle on whatever they're allowed to take), two things:

1. In 4e, it was possible to start with a 20 in your primary stat, if you bought an 18 with your point-buy points and played a race that got +2 to that stat. In general, however, this was recommended against for most characters, because you had to make too great a sacrifice. Few characters in 4e were sufficiently SAD to justify this, because the vast majority of characters wanted to advance (at least) two stats, usually an "attack and damage" stat (e.g. Charisma for Sorcerers) and a "utility" stat (e.g. Strength for Dragon and Cosmic Sorcerers, vs Dex for Chaos and Storm Sorcerers, and Con for Elementalist Sorcerers.) Hence, you generally went 18/16 as your top two stats, but it was perfectly feasible to do 16/16 instead and shore up your secondary stats if you wanted (that's generally what I did when I played Paladins, who are a bit messier in terms of what stats they value.) Hence, it is not ALWAYS the case that you want your core stat to be the best: it is possible to design a game where you have "two primary" stats, or one primary and one very important secondary, such that neglecting either is Unwise.™
2. I don't, personally, think that the shift away from randomness is a "problem," nor that it's particularly relevant for the end result. E.g., even in games where you roll 3d6 strict, in order, zero alterations, players will just choose to play whatever character suits those stats, e.g. if you got a decent Wisdom, you're almost certainly going to choose to play Cleric. If re-rolls or stat swaps or "roll and assign" are allowed, then all randomness does is randomly assign you a variable point-bought array, perhaps better, perhaps worse; you're still going to put your big stat in Charisma if you want to play Bard and your low stat in Int if you intend to play a beatstick who doesn't do all that NERD stuff like READING or LOGIC. Point being, the vast majority of groups had already gutted any of the meager benefits randomness might provide, and even when those benefits are enforced, player choice of character class accomplishes much the same thing as player choice of ability scores does today.

I don't think there's ever been a time when players didn't do this. It's simply human nature. Some folks will intentionally break pattern, but overall the pattern will remain. You aren't going to see a lot of Wis 8 Clerics, nor Fighters who have no positive physical stat modifiers. And I, personally, think that that's actually pretty realistic, unlike what some folks say. In the real world, you DON'T see a lot of people doing professional sports who are physically unsuited to the task. You don't see more than a very small number of, say, snipers with severe myopia. You don't see politicians who simply cannot do public speaking. People who suffer from dyspraxia or sever arthritis either don't try to play the violin, or have to stop doing so once their symptoms manifest. Etc. The realistic world is one where most people who do a job are actually somewhat good at it, particularly if that job can be lethally dangerous if you fail. Exceptions will exist, of course, but they will be exceptional.

The world puts selection pressure on "adventurers." Those who are weak at their core shtick don't last long. Over time, those who are good at it predominate. To do anything else would be unrealistic.

 

[Maxperson]

The vast majority of discussion regarding optimization takes one of two forms:
1. If you aren't hardcore optimizing, you're actively hurting your group, and that makes you a bad player.
2. If you are optimizing to any degree, you don't care about roleplay or fun, and that makes you a bad player.

I cringe when I see those, but number 2 is actively wrong as it applies to those making that claim. Any choice made to further any character goal you have is optimizing. The player of the fighter who has as part of his concept being a linguist who can speak with many different enemies is optimizing when he chooses the linguist feat. Even though he didn't gain any combat value out of that choice.

Almost everyone optimizes. They just often have different goals for their optimization.

 

[tetrasodium]

Yeah, I pretty much agree with you on all counts, other than the last one. 5e wanted things simplified, and it very much succeeded at that goal. Unfortunately, a fair number of the secondary consequences of that goal are not as desirable as the designers originally expected.

Personally, I think it is more interesting when there are enough points such that you can be good at whatever you're supposed to be good at, and then also above-average at some other thing unrelated to what you're supposed to be good at if you so choose, or "so okay it's average" at all the other things. I felt 4e's system was pretty much perfect on that front. Even an "incorrect" race (note quotes) could easily achieve a 16 in its main attack stat, which might not be great but is perfectly workable if you adapt to it. When you combine that the Fort/Ref/Will defenses taking the highest of two stats (Str/Con, Dex/Int, and Wis/Cha respectively), you get a situation where most characters will have at least one weakness (because you can't really advance more than 2 stats), but not so glaring a weakness that it becomes a massive liability.

a lot of the "not as desirable as the designers originally expected" problems are totally foreseeable & rarely need more than at a glance napkin math or basic understanding of players beyond a small but mostly insular d&d group to predict the result.

The difference between +1 +0 & -1 to a 1d20 roll with an average of 10.5 & a pretty extreme margin of error on that 10.5 is not the difference between good average & above average, it's barely even a factor. Even if you add a +3 to +5 for the primary stat a character with a -1 is still pretty average. It's not until you start getting +10 vrs +1/+0/-1 that the difference starts being noticeable.

That wide gap is no longer ameaningful gap though because 5e doesn't have the sort of level based scaling DCs like some past editions. Whatever your feelings on those level based DCs were that is why a skill tied to a dump stat hurt back then. In order to make a meaningful distinction that provides for good above average & above average you either need a dice pool to bring down the margin of error on the roll(s) attached to any given check or you need a wide gap between primary secondary & dump stats.

Having a wide gap works because obviously +5 from a stat is meaningful & a -4 is going to freaking hurt to the point where the group will go out of their way to ensure players who dumped that aren't doing anything important tied to it. With that wide gap & meaningful pain to a big dumpstat cost the opportunity cost of only having a +3 or +4 &getting a bunch of +/-1-2s means that a character can be ok at a lot of stuff as needed & still probably make up for it with a magic item or two when it comes to their main thing that only has the +3 or +4.

 

[Li Shenron]

I see a lot of advice to new players about what is imperative. As an example, I have seen a 16 as an attack stat characterized as insufficient even at lower levels.

Well you know, it's common for a lot of guys to feel insufficient... and getting an ASI is still cheaper than a sports car. Or surgery.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Well you know, it's common for a lot of guys to feel insufficient... and getting an ASI is still cheaper than a sports car. Or surgery.

So true! And having owned a sports car I will tread carefully.

But I also don’t discourage others from getting cars that might better fit their needs or help take them where they want to go.

All things being equal do I like more horses/torque? Of course! But we gotta think about mpg and if you want to tow and a lot of other things where relevant.

I once rented an Aveo. It was scary. We were barely able to get on and off the high way. It sounded like hamsters under the hood had recently been on a hunger strike.

I think my OP was misunderstood by a few which is fine. The extremes are no good in my opinion. I usually start with a 16 in my main attack stat. But I would not dissuade a noob from doing something cool for lack of a plus one more bonus on the way to 8th or 12th in particular.

I think the SAD emphasis is one example. Nice if you can sure but it limits a lot of choices.

But if you gotta have a sports car, I would not talk you out of it.

 

[MoonSong]

Which of these is a "better" array mechanically?

• 18 12 12 12 10 3
• 15 15 8 8 7 7
• 14 14 14 11 7 5
• 17 14 7 7 7 7
• 14 13 12 9 8 7

I'd love to take the second one, could be persuaded to take the second to last and can live with the third and the last. Not a fan of the last one.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, I'd take the 18 with the 3 any day. Somebody will cover that low stat.

I wouldn't. Nobody can really cover the 3. It's true that if someone else is with me, they might see something that I do not with my 3 wisdom and crappy perception, but it's inevitable that there will be many instances where I'm the only one who might notice something, but my 3 kills me. Or falling into a pit or other trap and the 3 dex kills me. Or where I'm the one conscious and have to drag my companion, but nope, because 3 strength. Or...

That 3 is going to hurt you much more than the 18 will help.

 

[tetrasodium]

I'd love to take the second one, could be persuaded to take the second to last and can live with the third and the last. Not a fan of the last one.

Exactly, once you get away from stereotypes like the BSF or frail & sickly megabrained wizard it gets more complicated for what's good enough & what's best for this character

Spoiler: some 18 arrays since everyone likes them best

All made using require 1 score of 10 just because 18/18/18/3/3/3 is a lead weight tax on everyone else at the table & limiting it to no duplicates instead would result in too many arrays

• 18/18/11/10/3/3. That might work for a wis/dex monk or something but your going to be pretty helpless against spells & useless with at least one non-int(or whatever) based attribute's skills
• 18/17/14/10/3/3 Great for a lot of builds but unless those first two or three are going into some combination of dex/con/wis you are still probably helpless vrs saves & still useless in skills associated with two attributes but only ok in two others. Going to be tough doing anything with skills if the whole group is going this way unless everyone hasa lot of your magic items devoted to shoring up specific weaknesses instead of being awesome in a fight
• 18/16/10/7/7/3 Starting to look pretty good. Probably going to have one or two iffy saves & unless it's a skill tied to the first two you are pretty much entirely reliant on luck of the d20 roll where you are already at least a little in the hole if not at the very bottom. If everyone in the group goes with stats like this the same kind of skill problems needing magic items that applied to earlier arrays applies
• 18/16/10/8/6/3 Almost identical to the last array but the deck chairs are arranged a little different so you can say you have an 8 somewhere.
• 18/14/14/10/5/3 Again similar to the last point. That 5 & the 3 are going to hurt & odds are good you will be helpless against at least one save
• 18/13/13/10/6/3 about the same as the last point
• 17/16/16/10/4/3 Three great stats, one ok stat & two crippling dump stats?... ok if the group is picking up the slack but you are probably helpless to some spells & going to find a lot of skills pretty rough without magic items targeting those instead of making you awesome
• 16/16/16/10/4/3 three great stats, one average & two horrific dump stats comes with a lot of benefits & problems ranging from saves to skills having some of the benefits & drawbacks of everything above,
• 15/15/15/10/9/3 Maybe you really wanted that 9 over the 3 for some skills or something & needed three good stats for a multiclass?
• 15/15/13/13/10/3 Pretty great multiclass or decent skill monkey with a single average skill & a single crippling dump stat. Problems are going to be build specific
• starts getting into things like the more average arrays I posted earlier from here

The group absolutely needs to coordinate better during session zero like that instead of ignoring the group & soloing with The Main Character with a few PC sidekicks because nobody has the budget to be great at their thing & still be ok at worst with everything else. Odds are good that anyone who specializes in a skill not tied to say... dex cha or dex... is going to be important whenever that skill comes up & with those crippling dump stats even someone who just drops an average ok +1/+0 on a poorly represented attribute is still going to shine for that choice.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I almost always make new characters with a 16 or 17 in their primary ability not because anybody at the table (or on the Internet?) expects me too, but because that's the highest number that the rules will let me start with, and maxing out that score makes for a more effective character, which I find more fun to play.

If the rules maxed out at 14/15, that's what I'd do. 18/19? That's what I'd do.

There's nothing magic about the 16, and it's not about expectations.

The thing is that in 5e that's what we see - but in 4e the point buy maximum topped out at 18 - and you could then get +2 from your race on top of that. And 18s rather than 20s in your primary stat were actually pretty common even while race/class stat synergy was normal. This was because the bought 17 cost three points for the single stat bump and the bought 18 4. At seven stat points to raise a 16 to 18 a lot of people wondered whether it was worth it or whether they wanted better rounded characters. But at only two stat points to raise a 13 to a 14 or 14 to 15 it's a bit of an easy choice; your primary stat is worth twice an off-stat easily

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think the problem, such as it is, comes from two sources.

1. Players have too much control over ability scores via methods like point-buy or arrays. If you want to start with a 16 in your primary stat, you can.
2. Too much single-ability dependency. A Strength-based fighter can do perfectly fine with Dex 8, because heavy armor removes Dexterity from the AC equation, and javelins make perfectly cromulent weapons at moderate distances. A caster "needs" to pump their casting stat above all else, because they get both prepared spells, spell attack, and spell DC from it.

If you have more randomness in your stats, it becomes more about playing to the stats you have rather than setting the stats to match your class. If you also have more variety in what stats do, that can lead to some more interesting combinations. For example, what if spells known or prepared was based on Intelligence, spells per day on Wisdom, and spell attack/DC on Charisma? That could give some interesting choices, with intelligent casters having a better chance of being prepared for a particular thing, wise casters more endurance, and charismatic casters having more oomph with the spells they do cast.

Another option would be to decouple ability scores from the primary things you use entirely. You're a 6th level fighter? In that case you have an attack bonus of +7, deal +4 damage, and have AC 18 (+2 with a shield) and 62 hp. Ability scores can then be used for ability/skill checks, and possibly unlock various special abilities you can choose. Maybe high Strength lets you Strike a Mighty Blow once per fight for double damage, or add a free Shove or something. That would paradoxically both make a high Strength less necessary (because it doesn't help with the round-over-round stats) and more impactful ("Haha! Taste my Mighty Blow, evil-doer!").

Well, sure, and at the same time the high DEX guy has "amazing riposte" or something that does a slightly different but pretty much equally useful effect.