Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ECMO3" data-source="post: 9274703" data-attributes="member: 7030563">But the question is "basic competancy" and you do not need great or even good roles to have basic competency.  The class chassis provide that even if your abilities are low.I am not saying a melee fighter with a 12 strength is better than a melee fighter with an 20 strength and everything else the same, she clearly isn't.  But regardless of what feats or fighting styles you pick, a fighter with really, really terrible roles who had to put a 12 in strength, will still be competent at melee using a strength-based weapon.   Missing out on the big number does not make such a fighter incompetent at fighting, which is her class role.Regarding your point about feats/styles, I generally disagree.  People take those feats usually because they want to do more damage.  It is a gameplay decision, not a power one and with the strength feats in particular they are generally not more powerful for having taken those feats. Regardless of ability scores, the strength weapon feats generally do not make characters more powerful overall IME.  They make characters do more damage at times and less damage at other times while making their characters equal or weaker at virtually ever other metric other than damage as compared to someone who did not take the feat.  As such overall characters are generally weaker in play if they take PAM or GWM IME.  Dex weapon feats (Sharpshooter and XBE) don't have this problem as much and it is more difficult to make such a generalization, although there are still tradeoffs.Note I am not including half-feats in this (Heavy Armor Master, Elven Accuracy, Crusher etc), but most of those half-feats will actually improve someone with low abilities more than they will improve someone with high abilities assuming the ability in question in both cases is either even or odd.Sure, but you don't need "more and more" to be competent in 5E.Note there is a floor where this is not true - someone who's highest roll is a 12 and has 5 abilities under 10 for example, but in the RAW method of rolling abilities this is extremely unlikely, and far less likely than poor roles with very high ability scores making you "incompetent" or at early levels dead.If your argument is that characters with high scores are more effective than ones with low scores I would obviously agree, what I take issue with is the idea that high abilities are a requirement to be effective.</blockquote>

Verification