D&D 5E The tyranny of small numbers

[Warpiglet-7]

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.

I have seen advice about the pointlessness of strength clerics because a 16 str is all that can be managed if you have a decent wisdom.

It got me thinking what about magic items? Are we telling people they must have a +1 sword or the character is doomed? Or what about people that roll slightly lower or fairly evenly distributed?

I think it’s a shame if people don’t try different things for the sake of a +1 or 2 no bonus early on. Similarly, I think the focus on SAD is overblown.

When I see people saying how bored they are with the same old EB warlock, I wonder “why do that?” There are lots of other ways to build one…if you can tolerate a slightly smaller bonus here or there.

There seems to me to be optimizing oneself to boredom in some cases.

 

[Helldritch]

You that this is exactly why people were begging for floating ASI don't you? There was a whole thread about not having a 16 was not the end of the world. Well, we now have floating ASI now. Thanks to TCoE. (But since I will never use that book...)

And yes, not having a 16 can be very fun and interesting and will not change the contribution of a character to a party.

 

[MatthewJHanson]

I've thought about trying to do a feat only character and never taking any ASIs, though I haven't actually done so yet.

 

[Charlaquin]

It’s a well-known phenomenon that players will optimize the fun out of a game if they can. However, I don’t think this is the same thing. Numerical bonuses aren’t what make a character interesting or uninteresting. Having a 16 or 17 in my primary ability instead of 14 or 15 is going to have a significant impact on my gameplay experience because all of my attacks and all of my checks with that ability are going to be 5% less likely to succeed until at least 12th level (if the campaign even lasts that long, and if I don’t decide to get a feat at 4th or 8th level). Having a 14 or 16 in a secondary stat instead of a 12 or 13 is going to have a less significant impact on my gameplay experience because I’ll be rolling with that stat less often. But neither change is going to meaningfully affect how the character plays. I’ll be doing the same things in either case, just with different numbers. It’s features that make a character interesting, not stats.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Statistics facilitate success. Success, in general, is more desirable than failure. Hence, players will seek things that increase their success.

Statistics are not equivalent to interest. Most players are pretty confident they can play a character that is interesting. Low stats, high stats, middling stats, none of those really matter for whether you play an interesting character. Interesting-ness is much more a function of the interaction between player and DM, regardless of system.

It seems to me the error here is thinking that people want those higher numbers because it will make their characters more interesting. This is false. People want the higher numbers because they wish to succeed as often as they can. Whether the character is interesting is a completely separate question.

It's deeply frustrating to deal with people constantly treating optimization in the most reductive, dismissive, non-discussable way possible. It'd be really nice if folks would (a) have a more open mind about the motives behind optimization, and (b) didn't assume that literally absolutely 100% of people who care about optimization EXCLUSIVELY care about it and don't give a crap about ANYTHING else.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Statistics facilitate success. Success, in general, is more desirable than failure. Hence, players will seek things that increase their success.

Statistics are not equivalent to interest. Most players are pretty confident they can play a character that is interesting. Low stats, high stats, middling stats, none of those really matter for whether you play an interesting character. Interesting-ness is much more a function of the interaction between player and DM, regardless of system.

It seems to me the error here is thinking that people want those higher numbers because it will make their characters more interesting. This is false. People want the higher numbers because they wish to succeed as often as they can. Whether the character is interesting is a completely separate question.

It's deeply frustrating to deal with people constantly treating optimization in the most reductive, dismissive, non-discussable way possible. It'd be really nice if folks would (a) have a more open mind about the motives behind optimization, and (b) didn't assume that literally absolutely 100% of people who care about optimization EXCLUSIVELY care about it and don't give a crap about ANYTHING else.

Well I was talking here about the difference between a 16 and 18 not the difference between a 10 and 20. I errantly thought that was clear. It was not so I clarify it here.

Additionally, variety and novelty matter like success.

I think you are reducing this point to black and white—-all one way or the other. I would not take a fighter without a reasonable attack bonus.

Likewise, there are people who get bored with the same few builds. Statistics can’t make it fun for them every time.

I feel bad for newbs who don’t know that shades of gray exist and are stuck with cookie cutter choices based on cookie cutter advice. There is a colorful world out there to explore.

Lastly, parties are not standard size. If the game can handle 4 character parties as well as 6 character parties, surely a 16 attack stat is within tolerance most of the time.

 

[pukunui]

I'm currently playing a human battle master fighter specialising in the heavy crossbow (based loosely on both Hannibal from the A-Team and Commander Vimes from Discworld - hence my current profile pic). I took the Piercer feat at 1st level, and at 4th level, I chose to take the Crossbow Expert feat despite only having a 16 in Dex. My reasoning was that the +2 from the Archery Fighting Style more than makes up for it, and bumping my Dex up to 18 wasn't going to improve my AC because he's wearing a breastplate which maxes out at +2 from Dex already.

He's still hitting more often than not. I may take Sharpshooter later on or maybe even another feat, but not feeling in any real rush to increase his stats at this point.

 

[Krachek]

Too much reading or viewing of optimizing guide!
The game don’t require a starting 18, a 16 is ok, and sometime if you roll stats the best you may have to start with is a 14. Usually you won’t start with lower than that.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

You that this is exactly why people were begging for floating ASI don't you? There was a whole thread about not having a 16 was not the end of the world. Well, we now have floating ASI now. Thanks to TCoE. (But since I will never use that book...)

And yes, not having a 16 can be very fun and interesting and will not change the contribution of a character to a party.

I have grown to like most of Tasha’s fine. The floating ASI is not a part that I like. I won’t say much more about it since it’s been litigated to death. But I get it.

I have a dwarf blade pact warlock right now. I think at 4th he has a 12 dex and 16 in chr and strength.

He has been a blast. I will probably up his chr at 8th level.

 

[MoonSong]

It’s a well-known phenomenon that players will optimize the fun out of a game if they can. However, I don’t think this is the same thing. Numerical bonuses aren’t what make a character interesting or uninteresting. Having a 16 or 17 in my primary ability instead of 14 or 15 is going to have a significant impact on my gameplay experience because all of my attacks and all of my checks with that ability are going to be 5% less likely to succeed until at least 12th level (if the campaign even lasts that long, and if I don’t decide to get a feat at 4th or 8th level). Having a 14 or 16 in a secondary stat instead of a 12 or 13 is going to have a less significant impact on my gameplay experience because I’ll be rolling with that stat less often. But neither change is going to meaningfully affect how the character plays. I’ll be doing the same things in either case, just with different numbers. It’s features that make a character interesting, not stats.

I'm of the opinion that low stats can indeed make a character more interesting to play. Limits breed creativity and low stats change the way you approach things. Also always starting with the same stat lineup can and does make characters more repetitive and less interesting. Instead of dealing with the implications that your chosen race doesn't give you "optimal" stats for your class and how that can make you choose differently in character building and in play, now everybody is in a comfort zone, so even race choice has become blander and even less relevant: the halfling barbarian now is basically the same as the halforc one except once or twice a day where their racial power actually gets to matter if ever.