Quote from Emmote >>

Quote from C0R >>

:( But as I check the math on this, I realize that 5e point buy does not scale up point cost the higher the stat, (its always 1 point to increase, weather you are at 10 or 14 already).

But it does though.

 oh god I just FAIL at reading tonight, a made a test character to check my posts assumptions and everything, then mis read the point cost! Oh caffeine where art thou.

I love rolling for stats. I do the basic 4d6 drop lowest (x6) for it, but my friend used 1d20 (x6) for a character of his, and I heard of doing 5d6 drop two lowest (x7 drop lowest). I have never done point buy. I think rolling makes the character more interesting/fun and organic.

I probably wouldn't mind rolling for stats if the stats were only rolled once and everyone in the party got those stats that they could place wherever they want. That would be fair. The thing I'm mostly against is someone getting 3 18's and someone else getting nothing better than a 12.

I tried something in my recent campaign that seemed to go over decently well.

Everyone in the group rolled 4d6 (drop the lowest) 7 times (drop the lowest). Then, everyone put their 6 scores into a "pool" that everyone picked from as a group - starting the cooperative aspect of the game right away. I let them use whatever method they wanted. They opted for talking it out. The person who took the 2 lowest stats (2 9s) also took the highest roll (a 17). They remained rather fair with the rest of the scores, otherwise.

I can't imagine this would work for every group, especially highly competitive ones, but everyone in my group seemed to not mind it. It was fun for me to see how they worked together to be fair to each other as well.

If anyone knows where a source I can cite this info from please help me out but isn't 5e balanced around PC having a primary stat of 16 with no magic items?

I'm think this was something said during the "D&D next" play test?

If so I wouldn't worry about having a non-optimised character.

Quote from Mikaos >>

If anyone knows where a source I can cite this info from please help me out but isn't 5e balanced around PC having a primary stat of 16 with no magic items?

I'm think this was something said during the "D&D next" play test?

If so I wouldn't worry about having a non-optimised character.

If we take away optional rules like feats and stick to point buy/standard array then you can have 17 in a state with the right race, which can become 19 at level 4, 20 by level 8. This is purely bog-standard. So no, it seems incredibly unlikely that the game is based around a primary stat of 16 since many characters start the game with higher and get 5 to 6 ASIs (depending on class). 

However, standard array and point buy are what they are because "feats" are an optional rule not a standard rule. So if you are using Feats for your ASIs then starting with point buy or standard array is not going to be best if you're not using an optimal race/class combo. Hence why there's an optional rule of rolling for stats, which has potential for higher starting stats so you are less likely to need ASIs on stats.

The PbP I am starting shortly the characters used standard array and then I have them a 2 pt boost to every ability score.   This gave a more heroic feel to the characters while still keeping everything equal and no min/ max .  They get solid main stats but still have weaknesses. 

Quote from FoxfireInferno >>

 it is very likely I could have hit a 16, 17 or even an 18

 

 It's even  more likely that you not roll anything higher than a 13, making you 'subpar' across the board.

Here's the thing.  The difference between 15 and 16 is 5%.  That's it.  I refuse to believe that a 5% difference in success suddenly renders a character useless, obsolete, or unplayable.  It makes no sense.  It's an absurd overreaction.

Second thing: It's the GM's job to provide appropriate encounters for the group.  This includes taking things like this into account, so in the end, it shouldn't matter anyway.

I think in the case of Pastorbarndog's 15/15 monk, a player will most certainly feel that 1 less attack & damage modifier and 2 lower AC for the first few levels.

To flip things around; how would people view it if the DM gave that same monk a quarterstaff +1 and bracers of deflection (AC+2 when not using armor or shield) with their level 1 starter gear - and players with 16 in primary abilities received no magical items?

Personally I am always in a quandary with character creation; my heart is with points buy/standard array - for the parity & my reluctance to gamble - but I also really don't like race/class combos having to settle for 14-15 in primary ability, which pits character concepts against 'optimal' race choices (e.g. a snooty high elf scholar is an inferior choice as an arcana or knowledge cleric).

In an ideal world, I would like race bonuses modelled on half-elves or the "House ______" human sub-races - the latter mostly have 2 ability bonuses fixed, and the 3rd chosen...

• Your ______ and ______ scores both increase by 1. In addition, one ability score of your choice increases by 1.
• Your ______ score increases by 2 and one other ability score of your choice increases by 1.

Granted that still makes classes like monk & barbarian awkward, but I think it would be close enough - protects the primary attack ability at least, so just AC that is a step behind.

Seriously some of you should just give every stat 18 already. There is almost no point to using the systems previously given. Not to sound like a bitter old geezer but "random" is no longer random when you're rolling 7 dice and doing re-rolls, or giving 35-40 points in stat buy.