Bear in mind that way back on page 13 I explained why I don't use racial ASIs.
I am not objecting to the use of floating ASIs in this discussion with Faolyn and yourself. Faolyn has been making rather unpleasant accusations about what people in this thread have been saying, and I've been trying to get them to show where they have actually said those things, or to stick to arguments that have actually been made.
The only thing I've been discussing with you is the binary "you need a max stat or else you suck" statements you seemed to be making and the inter-player and real-life implications of that mindset. As I have stated, I've no issue with the understanding that a +2 bonus is worse than a +3 bonus, just the attitude that the +3 is necessary for a viable character or the whole "If you don't have a 16 in strength, you're not a strong person" statement made.
I've no issue that your experience differs from mine, and I'm not accusing you of being the type of person who would actually put their beliefs into practice by telling a new player who assigned a number of 14s rather than a 16 to their character that it sucks, or someone that they aren't intelligent because they only got a B on a test.
Fair enough
Is a +3 bonus actually the average?
For adventurers? Yes. Though I suppose it is more accurate to say that it is the expected value of their highest prime stat.
This is not that hard to prove either.
All classes directly state what value to put your highest stat into, generally in the quick build sidebar. Also, look back at the chart on Page 12 of the PHB, right in the middle of the discussion on how to build your character, before getting your ability scores. We are directly told that Barbarians, Fighters and Paladins should prioritize strength, that Wizards should prioritize Intelligence, that Bards, Sorcerers and Warlocks should prioritize Charisma.
The table also is where all of the racial ASIs are listed. Under strength it tells us that Mountain Dwarves, Half-Orcs, Dragonborn, and Humans all get bonuses to strength. High Elves, Gnomes, Tielfings and Humans all get bonuses to Intelligence, ect.
This is not a terribly hard connection to draw. These classes should have high scores in these stats, these races give you bonuses in those stats.
When talking about the scores themselves, 4d6 drop the lowest is almost guaranteed to give you at least one of the values 16/15/14. The Standard array gives you a 15 and a 14. Then in the example, they have a Mountain Dwarf fighter who puts their 15 in strength, adds +2 and has a total of 17 strength.
Finally, when we look at the math of the game, DC 15 is said to be moderate. Not easy, not hard, it would be an average challenge. A character with a +3 score and prof +2 can hit a DC 15 fifty percent of the time. Your first level character should be able to hit a moderate DC fifty percent of the time in their best score, that sounds like the average to me.
Otherwise, if we look at the standard array again, the two LOWEST scores are a 10 and an 8. 10 being the supposed average person, is your second lowest score, with a +0. And, if we have a pure +0, an easy DC 10 task is accomplished... about 50% of the time.
In fact, if you translate the Standard array into modifiers, it gets kind of blatant. I'm going to go ahead and put that most races have a +1/+0.5 (translation of changing the score by +2/+1)
+2.5, +2, +1.5, +1, +0, -1
The "commoner average" is again in the bottom third, and even if you put your highest bonus into it from your race, it will only match your 3rd lowest stat. Meanwhile, the +0.5 can only really move the need to get you a second +2 or to get you that +3. Ever think about the fact that a 15 was the highest? If it was a 16, then the races with +2 bonuses would be able to hit 18's. But, if it were a 14 then humans could never get a 16 starting out. And note, humans are supposed to be good at any class, they are listed underneath every single ASI in that chart, corresponding to every single important stat for every single class. So, if we assume bog standard human, getting +0.5 across the board, look at the array
+3, +2.5, +2, +1.5, +0.5, -0.5
+2 is your tertiary stat. Your 4th is +1.5 and being average is again the second lowest stat you have.
So, your average Barbarian should have a strength of 16. Your average wizard should have an intelligence of 16. Your average bard should have a charisma of 16. You can choose differently, but they laid out this road map fairly clearly. Even the lowest effort build, base human + any class + put highest number where they tell you to, is going to net you a 16 in your prime stat, unless you are rolling dice and roll unusually badly.
Is it higher than the "average" commoner. Yes. But it is supposed to be. This is the "average" for an adventurer.
As stated, I've got no problem with this. Just the attitude that it is necessary for a viable character.
"Viable" is a tricky word.
Any character can be "viable" to a degree. I'm talking about hitting par. The expected values for your prime abilities in your class. The average.
Do you think that having one pip on a d20 lower chance for somethings in exchange for one or more pips better for other (albeit rarer) things was an issue because it actually came up a lot in rolling, or because the player knew it was always present even when they didn't actually roll within one pip of success?
(Not making a value judgement here:- I am legitimately curious. If someone is being made to feel worthless I would normally be looking at class, subclass, and spotlight time. That level of difference in some rolls would not have occurred to me to be an issue, so more information would be welcome.)
Yes.
We had 3 players (then four) and it wasn't a spotlight issue because it was a tight group. He was playing a Grave Domain cleric which I have seen as a very powerful subclass.
The issue was, he pretty much always missed.
He would cast Toll of the Dead on an enemy, he'd hit about once every three turns. Spiritual weapon, same thing. Guiding Bolt, usually missed. Every combat, every time, he would spend at least two turns in a row accomplishing nothing except wasting his spells.
I even outfitting him with more powerful items than the rest of the party by the end of it (he earned them, no worries) and still he felt like he contributed less than everyone else. Every spell was wasted, cantrips rarely landed, and this lasted for a year. Not just one bad session, the entire campaign.
And sure, I know enough about probability to know that it is possible that two clerics, played by two different players, in two different campaigns, who both started with 15 Wisdom could have both, independently suffered from unusually bad luck in having it feel like all of their spells were wasted because they missed so often.
Possible. Not probable though.
the +3 bonus is the maximum, not the average. (outside of rolling, in which I think you'll agree all bets are off). I do not believe that anyone here has an issue with a character having a 16 stat. - My issue is being told that it is necessary for a viable and playable character.
I am sorry you have an issue with that. But it could be because you are hearing "viable and playable" and I'm talking about "the average the game expects". It is a bizarre line, I know that. You wouldn't expect it to make a big difference. But it does.
dnd.wizards.com
