16 in your primary stat isn't that bad. You'll only be behind by +1 at most levels. Also the final rules are 95% guaranteed to have a point buy option (I believe it was omitted to ensure enough people tested the ABC version of stat generation).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a non-issue. You can still make a Str based cleric. You'll have a 16 in Str which is more than enough. You don't "need" it to be 18. There's no more times and a half on damage for going two handed.
Also, every 5 levels you add +2 to FOUR different stats. That's an 18 Str and 16 Con by 5th level.
You can even do this with a halfling. You'll have an 18 Str by 10th level instead.
Seriously. Optimization is almost pointless. An unoptimized character is only 1 point behind an optimized one on average.
I want to make a Strength-Based cleric (or rogue), or a Dexterity based Wizard! Right now all of these classes start 1 boost behind in their "primary" stat because the class selection phase only boosts as single fixed stat, so there's no option for getting something *else* to 18.
You could potentially allow that to be floating, but I think a better solution might be to give 2 stat boosts during that stage, one fixed, on floating, and then have your open stat boosts give you 3 rather than 4 boosts.
Sounds fine to me.
I also think 3 boosts rather than 4 would work better at higher levels, as you just get too many boosts to pretty much everything going up and characters feel a lot more uniform.
Many/most martials will feel obliged to put boosts into Str & Dex & Con. If they don't get a fourth boost to make a less obligatory choice with then they'll feel more uniform, not less. (This also kicks in if you shift one of the post-class boosts into the class stage as above, but I don't think it's as much of a problem if it only happens once.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And we've been told repeatedly that +1 makes a *huge* difference. You can't have it both ways. If Expert proficiency in weapons matters, then so does an 18 as compared to a 16.
EDIT: Sorry if I seem upset about this, but yeah, we've been repeatedly told by developers that +1 is a big difference in that system, yet they/others also seem to downplay it in some situations. It doesn't make sense, and it's essentially double-speak on their part. Either it matters, or it doesn't, and we need to choose one.
It's fine to be upset. It's all in how you express it. Also, I am not one to talk.
+1 matters, kind of. +2 matters more and +3 is freaking king. An unoptimized character in this edition is only 1 point behind the optimized one. I'm learning to like this. It means you're still effective even if you somehow make a "bad" character. What I'm disliking is the fact that future supplements can NEVER give another +1 anywhere on a character without potentially breaking the system. This heavily restricts design. With no room to breath, you're stuck with a stagnant system.
Just play the test, take exceptional notes, and move the future towards better character options. It's all any of us can hope to do.
What I'm disliking is the fact that future supplements can NEVER give another +1 anywhere on a character without potentially breaking the system. This heavily restricts design. With no room to breath, you're stuck with a stagnant system.
My hope is that this is actually a benefit to the system. If future supplements can't fall back(or are more limited on falling back) on +1s, they can add interesting non-numerical aspects instead of just +1s. At least on d20 rolls. I'm far more ok with a more relaxed take on +1 on non-d20 rolls (though too much stacking might prove eccessive), but if they can manage to achieve more interesting effects without just being numerical boosts, then I don't think I have a problem with limiting bonuses the way they are.
+1 matters, kind of. +2 matters more and +3 is freaking king. An unoptimized character in this edition is only 1 point behind the optimized one.
This is untrue. An unoptimized character can end up as much as 12 points behind an optimized one (before items). Untrained and stat 8 (-3) vs max stat + legendary. (6+3=9)
The catch is this won't come up often, but then neither will legendary proficiency. Before 7th level, expert only comes up in a few cases. Master is even more rare, and a literal handful of cases aside, doesn't come up at all until levels are in the teens.
But 1 point behind certainly isn't true. Even at first level, it's easy to be at +2 vs someone else in attacks (because fighter). Skillwise, training matters less than stat modifier. Saves can get up to expert, but the main difference is stats again (which is -1 to 4 range).
And that's before you get into any sort of shenanigans. A 6th level fighter cleric of gorum (2nd level feat) with the magic weapon spell (4th level feat) and the zeal domain (6th level feat), can have an attack at 6+4+2+1+1 (+14), while a lot of classes wandering around trained in the same same weapon tops out 6+4 (+10), and only if they've thrown a lot of stat ups at strength. A spellcaster can compensate with magic weapon spells of their own, but they're still more than 1 point behind.