log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 5E Wow! No more subraces. The Players Handbook races reformat to the new race format going forward.

Status
Not open for further replies.
No. This is a blatantly wrong misstatement of my position.
What is your statement then?

A dwarf with 10 Con and an ability to recover health is ok, but a dwarf with 8 in Con is not?
Or 12 vs 10?

Why do you insist that an ability that allows a dwarf to recover health be linked to +2 Con?
That makes no sense at all.

You could just say, you prefer it that way, and that is ok. But your argumentation is flawed.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Scribe

Hero
thank you... I am sure that is better then what I just scribbled at work

So, coming back to this, I looked up the relevant page in the DMG (page 274) and then looked at what a 1st level character is meant to fight as per XGtE (page 90) and we get.

Level 1 Character, 1:1 with 1/4 CR, with an AC of 13, 36-49 HP, and 4-5 Damage Per Round.

Now, what is 'balance'? Well I believe that is going to be the crux of the discussion, but ahem..

303krn.jpg


Balanced, despite what low ranked players in a competitive game will claim, is 50%, as our good man Thanos, is well aware.

Average roll on a D20? 10.5 or so Google tells me.
Fighter Proficiency at level 1? 2.
Ability Modifier to meet that 50% success rate on attacks? Well now...1.

10 + 2 + 1 = 13. :)

Balanced, not optimal, not most effective, would therefore be a nice, hearty strength of...12. :ROFLMAO:

Right? Not Optimal! Not even really effective, but if you are looking at a balanced encounter 1 on 1, where 'balance' is a 50/50, thats it.

Heck, the DMG even has the Attack Bonus of 3, which again lines up nicely with our 2 Proficiency + 1 Ability Modifier (due to 12 Str).

I've never even bothered to look at that stuff before, but unless I'm crazy that lines up with my gut expectation that the game is probably 'balanced' around a +2, way more than expecting a +3.

Now I'm off to contemplate the balance of the universe, while I walk my dog. ;)
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
Keep looking. They are social and serve as ambassadors, diplomates, magistrates. merchants, etc. Those are mental stat heavy.

Um... doesn't every race have diplomats and ambassadors? Isn't that kind of the point of the position? Same with merchants, everyone has merchants. And a lot of people definitely have magistrates.

So, if this is your evidence, basically everyone would be mental stat heavy.

I don't see the words nitrogen or carbon dioxide, either. What do plants breathe? What do humans exhale?

Not everything has to be written down for it to be present. Especially on a game built around common understandings of things.

The element of air from the Elemental Plane of Air? Aether? What did the ancient world think we breathed before we discovered Carbon Dioxide?

Take Beholders just for a moment. They are created out of dreams. They aren't born then grow, there is no egg or larva, a Beholder dreams and then a new fully formed beholder just appears in the world. How would they have genetics? Why would they have genetics, there is no genetic information being passed on.

Just because we know genetics is true in the real world doesn't mean it is necessarily true in a fantasy world.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
So, coming back to this, I looked up the relevant page in the DMG (page 274) and then looked at what a 1st level character is meant to fight as per XGtE (page 90) and we get.

Level 1 Character, 1:1 with 1/4 CR, with an AC of 13, 36-49 HP, and 4-5 Damage Per Round.

Now, what is 'balance'? Well I believe that is going to be the crux of the discussion, but ahem..

View attachment 145488

Balanced, despite what low ranked players in a competitive game will claim, is 50%, as our good man Thanos, is well aware.

Average roll on a D20? 10.5 or so Google tells me.
Fighter Proficiency at level 1? 2.
Ability Modifier to meet that 50% success rate on attacks? Well now...1.

10 + 2 + 1 = 13. :)

Balanced, not optimal, not most effective, would therefore be a nice, hearty strength of...12. :ROFLMAO:

Right? Not Optimal! Not even really effective, but if you are looking at a balanced encounter 1 on 1, where 'balance' is a 50/50, thats it.

Heck, the DMG even has the Attack Bonus of 3, which again lines up nicely with our 2 Proficiency + 1 Ability Modifier (due to 12 Str).

I've never even bothered to look at that stuff before, but unless I'm crazy that lines up with my gut expectation that the game is probably 'balanced' around a +2, way more than expecting a +3.

Now I'm off to contemplate the balance of the universe, while I walk my dog. ;)

I would point out that going off of supervillains isn't the best argumentation. After all the humble sword is considered "balanced" if the blade (which is much longer) is of almost equal weight to the hilt (which is much smaller) so that the center of the blade is located a few inches below the tip.

In other words, 50/50 is not guaranteed to be balanced. In fact, we know that they did not look for an accuracy rate of 50%, because missing half the time feels bad. The balance point they sought was around 65%.

Of course, the last time I engaged in arguing this point, I was shouted down and accused of all manner of things. But I would note that since each face on the d20 is 5%, that getting a 16 for a +3 puts you right around that 60-65% mark.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
So, coming back to this, I looked up the relevant page in the DMG (page 274) and then looked at what a 1st level character is meant to fight as per XGtE (page 90) and we get.

Level 1 Character, 1:1 with 1/4 CR, with an AC of 13, 36-49 HP, and 4-5 Damage Per Round.

Now, what is 'balance'? Well I believe that is going to be the crux of the discussion, but ahem..

View attachment 145488

Balanced, despite what low ranked players in a competitive game will claim, is 50%, as our good man Thanos, is well aware.

Average roll on a D20? 10.5 or so Google tells me.
Fighter Proficiency at level 1? 2.
Ability Modifier to meet that 50% success rate on attacks? Well now...1.

10 + 2 + 1 = 13. :)

Balanced, not optimal, not most effective, would therefore be a nice, hearty strength of...12. :ROFLMAO:

Right? Not Optimal! Not even really effective, but if you are looking at a balanced encounter 1 on 1, where 'balance' is a 50/50, thats it.

Heck, the DMG even has the Attack Bonus of 3, which again lines up nicely with our 2 Proficiency + 1 Ability Modifier (due to 12 Str).

I've never even bothered to look at that stuff before, but unless I'm crazy that lines up with my gut expectation that the game is probably 'balanced' around a +2, way more than expecting a +3.

Now I'm off to contemplate the balance of the universe, while I walk my dog. ;)
Like I mentioned before.

The PHB, Starter Set, and practical every PC example WOTC used for 5e has a character with a 16, 17, or 18 in the primary score for a level 1 character.

In the PHB and DMG they suggest classes and races of PCs to have matching Ability score focus.

So when I say "5e assumes a 16 in your primary score for normal PCs" and "Every sees have a 16+ in their class primary score and a 14+ in their secondary as normal and not optimizing nor powergaming" that's what I meant. 5e assumes a 16, it isn't built around it. It just expects you to roll a 16.
 

HammerMan

Adventurer
Balanced, despite what low ranked players in a competitive game will claim, is 50%, as our good man Thanos, is well aware.

Average roll on a D20? 10.5 or so Google tells me.
Fighter Proficiency at level 1? 2.
Ability Modifier to meet that 50% success rate on attacks? Well now...1.

10 + 2 + 1 = 13. :)

Balanced, not optimal, not most effective, would therefore be a nice, hearty strength of...12. :ROFLMAO:

Right? Not Optimal! Not even really effective, but if you are looking at a balanced encounter 1 on 1, where 'balance' is a 50/50, thats it.

Heck, the DMG even has the Attack Bonus of 3, which again lines up nicely with our 2 Proficiency + 1 Ability Modifier (due to 12 Str).

I've never even bothered to look at that stuff before, but unless I'm crazy that lines up with my gut expectation that the game is probably 'balanced' around a +2, way more than expecting a +3.

Now I'm off to contemplate the balance of the universe, while I walk my dog. ;)

I'm not sure that 50% is the balance point, and again the stat/prof remains the same for 3 levels (maybe more if mult class or use feats) so going of CR 1/4 is the lowest end that should be the easiest fight, you can be fighting up to a CR 3 at these bonuses to hit...

I know D&D didn't keep the categories from 4e (and man do I wish they would for 5.5) but I tried to find a "solider" at CR 1 (average level) and the biggest baddest CR 3 I could find...

SO even by your example, the easiest fight is 50/50, and the hardest fights (AC 17 )is 35/65 against the player... that doesn't seem suboptimal that seems dumb. (The situation not you)

for a 14 or 12 to be the balance point you should be able to show the ability to have a chance against any major AC, and any major threat in probably the CR 5 or less range.

Like I mentioned before.

The PHB, Starter Set, and practical every PC example WOTC used for 5e has a character with a 16, 17, or 18 in the primary score for a level 1 character.

In the PHB and DMG they suggest classes and races of PCs to have matching Ability score focus.

So when I say "5e assumes a 16 in your primary score for normal PCs" and "Every sees have a 16+ in their class primary score and a 14+ in their secondary as normal and not optimizing nor powergaming" that's what I meant. 5e assumes a 16, it isn't built around it. It just expects you to roll a 16.
wow that is easier then the math.

Can someone link or list all the places WoTC used pregens, if any have a 14 prime stat that gives @Scribe a chance to be right. if NONE do I think that sinks his arguement.
 

Bolares

Hero
Can someone link or list all the places WoTC used pregens, if any have a 14 prime stat that gives @Scribe a chance to be right. if NONE do I think that sinks his arguement.
I think the best place to look would be phandelver. That's the product WotC chose to teach people to play the game. The pregens should show new players the baseline character
 

HammerMan

Adventurer
I think the best place to look would be phandelver. That's the product WotC chose to teach people to play the game. The pregens should show new players the baseline character
good idea there is a PDF on the wizard site lets look:

FIghter 16 str 15 Con
Cleric 16 Wis 15 Con 14 Str
Rogue 16 Dex 16 Cha
Wizard 16 INt 15 Dex 14 Con
Fighter 16 Dex 15 COn 14 Str

I should have looked at the Con on the rogue before I shut it, but WoTC at least TEACHES 16 prime stat
 

Aldarc

Legend
good idea there is a PDF on the wizard site lets look:

FIghter 16 str 15 Con
Cleric 16 Wis 15 Con 14 Str
Rogue 16 Dex 16 Cha
Wizard 16 INt 15 Dex 14 Con
Fighter 16 Dex 15 COn 14 Str

I should have looked at the Con on the rogue before I shut it, but WoTC at least TEACHES 16 prime stat
12 Constitution for the Rogue
 

Scribe

Hero
Oh I'm not arguing that Wizards is telling players to aim for 50% success.

The 65% noted in the optimization articles is because yes, every +1 is a 5% increase.

Makes a person appreciate Bless a lot more...

All I'm saying is that the game, the crunch, doesn't expect a 16 score for a character to function.

Of course it will be better, add in a Bless, Advantage, and you're golden.

Unless someone has some additional math somewhere that proves the game breaks down if you don't start with 16 or 17?

Good luck changing my mind. :)
 

Bolares

Hero
Oh I'm not arguing that Wizards is telling players to aim for 50% success.

The 65% noted in the optimization articles is because yes, every +1 is a 5% increase.

Makes a person appreciate Bless a lot more...

All I'm saying is that the game, the crunch, doesn't expect a 16 score for a character to function.

Of course it will be better, add in a Bless, Advantage, and you're golden.

Unless someone has some additional math somewhere that proves the game breaks down if you don't start with 16 or 17?

Good luck changing my mind. :)
Oh, got you. The bar you are setting is minimal functionability. okay, than no, the game doesn't break at less than 16. But it's the expected value for your primary stat.

With less than 16 your chracter won't be useless, but it will be underperforming.
 

Scribe

Hero
Oh, got you. The bar you are setting is minimal functionability. okay, than no, the game doesn't break at less than 16. But it's the expected value for your primary stat.

With less than 16 your chracter won't be useless, but it will be underperforming.
Under performing, if the bar is set to 'fully optimized'.

That's my point of contention.

The games mechanics do not expect 16.

65% success, 70% with Bless is not 'balanced' unless the PCs are intended to just waltz into any encounter with no sense of risk.

I mean people have noted Monsters are under tuned, that putting players under pressure doesn't happen 'naturally' in 5e.

Well, no kidding? If the players have been conditioned to believe they should only create optimal stats, then the game balance is hilariously in the players favour.
 

HammerMan

Adventurer
Under performing, if the bar is set to 'fully optimized'.

That's my point of contention.

The games mechanics do not expect 16.

65% success, 70% with Bless is not 'balanced' unless the PCs are intended to just waltz into any encounter with no sense of risk.

I mean people have noted Monsters are under tuned, that putting players under pressure doesn't happen 'naturally' in 5e.

Well, no kidding? If the players have been conditioned to believe they should only create optimal stats, then the game balance is hilariously in the players favour.
how is a 16 fully optimized? have you never played with a power gamer?

I mean I can get you think 14 is where the game is balanced (I just disagree) but I cna't understand where you are getting a 16 is fully optimized.
 

Bolares

Hero
Under performing, if the bar is set to 'fully optimized'.
No, underperforming if the bar is set in the same place the starter set pregens are.

But that doesn't really matter. In my experience a player's feel of balance is way more important than actual game balance. My players don't like the idea of having their primary stat lower than 16. So while racial ASI were a thing they were locked in making choices that could make them reach at least 16. I got rid of racial ASI's before Tasha's came out, because there was a need for it in my table. After that, their character creation choices were way more diverse and they felt that they could build any character they wanted without bein "punished".

Is that a matematical reality? No. But I'm not the one who will tell their feelings about the game are wrong and that they should play a wizard with a 14 Int. I adapted my game to my players needs (and lucky me, the game shifted in the same direction).

This is all tables reality? no. Everyone should and will be happy about this? no. But that's my reality.

I just don't like the false dichotomy that either you are ok with 14 stats or your are only trying to be fully optimized (not that there's anything wrong with optmizing).

I get why there were ASIs in the game, and they served that purpose well for some time, but there are other ways to acomplish those goals (the latest UA shows us there are ways to do it). I just hope WotC can adapt their design style to acomplish those goals well and make the most players possible happy with the game.
 

Bolares

Hero
how is a 16 fully optimized? have you never played with a power gamer?

I mean I can get you think 14 is where the game is balanced (I just disagree) but I cna't understand where you are getting a 16 is fully optimized.
Well, to be fair, the ceiling for optimizing stats in 5e is really low. 18 is almost impossible, and 16 is a given (if you combine well race and class)...
 

Scribe

Hero
how is a 16 fully optimized? have you never played with a power gamer?

I mean I can get you think 14 is where the game is balanced (I just disagree) but I cna't understand where you are getting a 16 is fully optimized.
Sorry, not even fully optimized.

I'm just talking at the most basic. Like Orc Fighter/Barb, Level 1, Standard Array.

17 may as well be 16 in terms of the calculation being discussed.

Going into various power builds just makes the 'balanced' discussion even more laughable.
 

Scribe

Hero
In my experience a player's feel of balance is way more important than actual game balance.
So just to be clear, I get you.

This simply SCREAMS to me however, what I hear all the time in various competitive games.

'No way am I a Gold Ranked players the match making system is broken!'

Players expectations of what is balanced, what their own performance is, are rarely tied to reality.

So I get you, I really do, but in talking about just mechanics, that 16 not only isn't required, but the poor expectation setting done in 5e has misrepresented to Players what they 'need' and it's had a negative influence on the perception of the game IMO.

I honestly wish I had looked at this year's ago. I always felt 16s made it too easy, and there it is staring at me the whole time. :ROFLMAO:
 

HammerMan

Adventurer
Going into various power builds just makes the 'balanced' discussion even more laughable.
that is what I am saying... calling a 1pt difference "fully optimized" is crazy laughable. Especially since people are still rolling dice for stats (and following the rule even if it is a dumb rule).

People have had 20's to start for gosh sakes...

if you think that the difference between 16 and 14 is so big as to call it "Fully" optimized, then what does it say that WotC shows 16s?
Can you pull 1 example of a 14 prime stat on any pregen? that is all it takes to show you are at least in the ball park 1 pregen
 

Scribe

Hero
that is what I am saying... calling a 1pt difference "fully optimized" is crazy laughable. Especially since people are still rolling dice for stats (and following the rule even if it is a dumb rule).

People have had 20's to start for gosh sakes...

if you think that the difference between 16 and 14 is so big as to call it "Fully" optimized, then what does it say that WotC shows 16s?
Can you pull 1 example of a 14 prime stat on any pregen? that is all it takes to show you are at least in the ball park 1 pregen
No no, I was wrong to say fully optimized, got it.

Starting with a 20, would render the balance a joke.

I don't need a pregen to prove anything, I couldn't care less what Wizards has demonstrated as an example.

They WANT players to succeed.
They WANT players to feel heroic.

It's not heroic to some (most) to struggle. It's more heroic to some, to just cleave through the bad guys.

Well when you have a potential +7 at level 1? +8 with Bless?

LOL. Balanced.
 

Bolares

Hero
So I get you, I really do, but in talking about just mechanics, that 16 not only isn't required, but the poor expectation setting done in 5e has misrepresented to Players what they 'need' and it's had a negative influence on the perception of the game IMO.
I think it's not just that. 5e comes with the bagage of older editions. In 3e and 4e 16 would be a low stat for your primary stat. So a lot of players will think 14 is absurd...

In the end I don't think that math is a good reason to change the game, but seeing how things could be... there are a lot of better ways to represent physical differences in races other than ASIs.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top