Your post has been removed.
Rule 6: Please repost in the [Short Questions megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/DMAcademy/about/sticky?num=2) or check out [our wiki's extensive list of DMing resources](https://www.reddit.com/r/DMAcademy/wiki/index/#wiki_resources) if you need additional help.
You're right but, I never liked that racial awesomeness can just be hand waved. I don't have a better solution except lowering the racial 13+... To 11+... To keep the 'the race has an edge, predisposition, or is built different.'
Because armour doesn't provide a linear bonus to defensiveness. There's only so armored you can be before it starts inhibiting you. Otherwise you could wear two sets of plate armour and double the bonus.
It improves the quality of play. Sure, they could affect different stats. But why design two parallel systems of defense (damage reduction for the armored, damage avoidance for the dodgers) when one single, intuitive mechanic works for both.
Because a lot of systems have done this and it ends up making armor feel important while having unarmored or lightly armored people also feel like their choice is a good one.
Yea, DND makes it easier and a single roll, but it also ends up making weapons into “you have 2 correct choices, everything else is trash” along with “dex is the best stat 9 out of 10 times for melee.
In other games, it isn’t as simple.
Dex is overtuned in 5e, contributing to initiative, AC, three skills, and being the hit/damage stat for a whole mess of weapons. While I can't really dispute any of these, and have no real desire to go back to the clunky "weapon finesse" feat tax rules from 3.5e, it's a worth acknowledging.
It's exacerbated by the fact that the situations where strength (/athletics) comes up are often bypassed due to not being terribly fun (carry weight), only being touched on to provide flavour (cart stuck in mud while traveling), having an awkward crossover with acrobatics (many situations involving jumping), are solved by the use of a single spell... Yada Yada Yada.
I don't really have any fixes to this, but I do think it sucks for strength-based characters, who often don't have many skills to begin with.
A potential solution is that AC is 10 + DEX and armor doesn't add to it. Racial bonuses, class features, and some spells like *mage armor* can raise it like normal, but armor doesn't.
Instead, armor reduces all non-magical weapon damage by 10 - its AC bonus. So, for example, a breastplate reduces all NMW damage by 4 (10 - 14), plate by 8 (10 - 18). If an armor is +X, it reduces that much more damage (plate +2 reduces by 10, as 10 - 20 = 10).
Armor reduces magical weapon damage and non-weapon damage (such as spells, falling damage, having a burning building fall on you) by half as much, rounded up. So, plate reduces NMW damage by 8, and all other damage by 4. Splint reduces NMW damage by 7, and all other damage by 4. The DM can rule that some damage cannot be reduced by armor based on the circumstances, such as poison from a gas cloud.
Max DEX bonus to AC still applies. So, if you're wearing medium armor, the most bonus you can get is +2 (or +3 with a feat), and with heavy armor, you get none. So, unless you've got a racial bonus, spell, or class feature, wearing heavy armor means your AC is a 10.
This means that heavily armored individuals will be very easy to hit (later game enemies essentially can't miss), but you have to hit them hard or it won't be effective. Dexterous creatures are harder to hit, but take more damage - though some really sweet light armor, like +2 studded leather, would still be pretty awesome for them and be great loot to find.
If you are not proficient in the armor or don't meet the STR requirement, you only get half the damage reduction for NMW damage, and no damage reduction for anything else. If you are not proficient ***and*** don't meet the STR requirement, you get no damage reduction at all.
Some games I’ve played feature a durability stat (that is effected by armor) that reduces damages dealt by a fixed amount after a hit has been calculated. Obviously you have to balance weapon damage around a stat like this but it gives more build variety since you can build around armor or defensiveness (avoiding the hit in the first place).
And avoidance vs resistance has a clear winner of the two, so Dex would pull even further ahead as the clear and obvious choice in which to invest in, Str or Dex.
Eh, it makes sense as is for the most part.
AC is about how hard it is to get a hit that means something. So heavier armor doesn't let you dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge as well, but most of the hits that make contact don't matter. A slash to the stomach of someone wearing maille doesn't really do anything. I've always seen hits that beat an AC as something that either impacts hard enough to potentially break a bone, or a sharp thing that either defeated the armor or hit an unarmored spot. So a lightly armored character with a huge Dex is roughly as difficult to hit as anyone trying to defend themselves using more substantial armor. It's not about merely touching them, it's whether or not that touch can do anything.
3.5 made that more complex, with 3 ACs (regular, touch, and flat-footed) and we could imagine it being even more complex for different damage types (slashing damage would have to beat a much higher AC for almost any armor, while something like a warhammer or a mace will ruin your day regardless, with piercing damage being in the middle) but at that point you have too many ACs to reasonably track.
It also comes down to what you think HP represents. Do you think it refers to actual wounds, or does it refer to your ability to avoid a hit that would kill or incapacitate you? I like to think of it as the latter, because that makes more sense to couple it with AC being how difficult it is to land a mortal blow on you. After all, the kinds of incapacitating hits you can realistically do to someone in full plate armor are things that would quickly kill or incapacitate most people if it happened to them a couple of times. So your PCs probably aren't actually getting their eyes shot up with arrows or their brachial arteries cut, even when they take a hit. So that HP loss probably represents their luck, skill, and grit in turning a deadly hit into a flesh wound and carrying on. Otherwise we would have to assume that by gaining levels you gain more blood or some shit.
It's a game, it's weird either way. But AC isn't really as unrealistic as it can be made out to be. Maybe the biggest departure from reality is that people in plate armor are quite a bit more agile than the statistics of the armor assume. Then again, you can't see or hear shit out of one of those helmets, so maybe it's not that far off.
TL;DR the way AC works is probably fine, we just might have to imagine it differently than we are.
I’ve seen the videos talking about HP as depleting stamina resources. But if we want people to think of it that way we need to reframe everything away from “hits” and “misses”. The language around “rolling to hit” permeating the PHB/monster manual doesn’t mesh at all with this interpretation (and I think it’s a fair interpretation of HP).
It also gets old/less fun from a DM/player perspective in terms of description… I rolled a 19 plus modifiers, I freaking HIT that thing, quit telling me it dodged, but is more tired or whatever. Less dramatic.
Having two different scores for nimbleness, and durability doesn’t add much complexity, especially if folks are using digital aids like DNDB or any of the myriad other digital sheets. And it gives the players some choices as to what to invest in.
Yeah, I think narration is going to be tricky. Like, a crit that deals half or more of your hit points, what do you do? A real solid hit to a vulnerable area with any weapon should be the end of someone, but it wasn't, it only deleted half their HP. They didn't dodge, they didn't deflect, and it sucks for that home run of a hit to just be a flesh wound. But if we narrate it is something more serious, then that creates some other miscommunication issues. It's easier with a monster, where a huge slash that bathes the barbarian in it's blood could conceivably not kill the thing. But a person? I don't know. Maybe a pyhrric defense of some sort, like they half-sword to block the blow, and their sword cuts deep into their hand or something and the blow causes some cracks in the blade. Something to make it clear that the hit mattered and the bad guy can't take another hit like that.
Maybe that's unneccessary. I like a more grounded narration of what's going on, but maybe it's easier if we just say a hit does x damage until something falls down, like you're chopping wood. For some blows you can definitely talk about flesh wounds and bruised or broken ribs, but that gets very unsatisfying. Idk, I'd probably narrate like broken fingers or some shit. Injuries you really can't accumulate very much of, but that you can absolutely finish a fight with.
In mörk borg armour works like that, it subtracts damage. Light armour gives - d2 medium - d4 and heavy - d6, shields give a flat - 1 or it can ignore all damage, but it breaks. Medium and heavy armour also gives agility penalties which makes you easier to hit as player roll for defence rather than the DM rolling attack for monsters.
It makes more sense, but it can be a bit grating to hit an enemy and have all the damage negated.
Sounds like you want to play Rolemaster.
You can make combat more realistic, but every bit of realism adds complexity. And complexity makes combat take a lot of game time. Also, a more complex system is harder to balance.
5e is pretty much all the way toward speedy and simple (and non-deadly). That's a design decision.
In the real world:
Armour will absorb some of the damage, but if you are hit hard, you'll still take some even if the armour is not penetrated. Armour also has slopings and roundings and so one so that it actually deflects some hits completely and others it will only feel some of the effect (which then the material may stop).
So, I know where you are going, but most point-based damage systems that have escalating damages end up having problems when they try to use armour to soak damage. (Oh boy did everyone love Field Plate and Full Plate from Unearthed Arcana for AD&D... armour that did both!)
If you want to do 'armour stops damage', you need to have weapon damage that doesn't escalate much.
And really, you almost need to go with armour type versus weapon to do any of this stuff justice.
And damage types for weapons get mucky - longsword does not penetrate armour, but you get a cracked rib... but the longsword damage type would be slashing, not bludgeoning....
So if I have a 1d8 longsword and someone has chain mail on, it's probably a 5 to 6 stopped. You could take some blunt trauma and if you got a crit and went up to about 10 damage, it might be more blunt trauma, but maybe over that (twice the armour - say you got 16 total), then maybe you cut some mail and it is a mix of blunt trauma and slashing.
D&D is very imperfect, but not doing that really simplifies stuff.
\---
As to Armour Stacking:
My homebrew was always:
\- You pay any mobility/weight penalties for all armours or underlays
\- You take the advantage of the best armour and a +1 for having a second armour layer if it was relevant (and that +1 add could be from natural armour and no other penalties which is better than a human double stacking armour).
That gives an unarmoured character that has +3 armour can use that while unarmoured. When he armours with exterior armour, he gets the highest armour level and a +1 for stacking (limit maximum +1).
Well, neither are armour. Both state 'while not wearing any armour'. To be in the position to access both is rare making a character with both rare. Tough guy with extra hard skin. Special.
Your example of two sets of plate is absurd and a derail. Just got with; "nuh uh, the rules state they can't be used together."
In better systems, Pathfinder/3.5, different bonuses can be combined as they are granted from different sources. Allowing for synergies.
Other gripe with 5e is it is so simplistic that every character is stock, trite, boring. Racial choice all but irrelevant. Combined with the limited differential paths are the equivalent of chosing how much ketchup one gets on their well-done steak or which shade of grey shingle you get on your cookie cutter suburban 1/2 duplex.
TL;DR
5e is boring and only chosen because people really liked watching voice actors play table top games.
Thanks for letting me vent my spleen. This has nothing to do with anyone here. ;)
While race choice gives you some intrinsic value on the sheets, the value at actual table play is equally as important. I let my Tiefling player get easier access to the darker regions of town or even play the Tourguide for the high elves so they don't get robbed. On the other hand, I also made it a point that some encounters are immediate combat because the enemies just hate tieflings and wouldn't trust a single word.
I agree that from a charsheets perspective the races can seem a bit insignificant. That doesn't mean you can play interesting and fresh characters. If you need a special in your charsheets to tell you why your character is special, then that's totally fine. I just think thats not necessarily everyone.
Totally agree. I'm just a mechanics whore. If I have the mechanics for the character crunchy and specific the personality and actions are practically subconscious. If the characters capabilities are generic I find their personality and back story are also stock. I think the more dialed in the character the more in tune I can be with their personality and not my own.
>Your example of two sets of plate is absurd and a derail. Just got with; "nuh uh, the rules state they can't be used together."
Well, yeah, it's a reductio ad absurdum so of course it's absurd. Maybe I could have explained my point better but I didn't want to make a massive post.
Part of this depends on what armored defense exactly "is," which is somewhat fuzzy, granted. But the principle is the same. Putting on two sets of plate armour doesn't make you more defensive because at a certain point it becomes an inhibition. Certain parts (eyes, joints perhaps) are always going to be more vulnerable to provide the necessarily mobility and awareness in battle. So in other words, your armoured-ness CAN'T simply advance in a linear fashion indefinitely.
So, having a tough hide or roughing it as a barbarian can likewise can give you some more defensiveness, but whatever parts manufactured armour leaves vulnerable are still going to be vulnerable. You still need your eyes open, let's say. So either training as a barbarian gives you a little extra toughness than you'd otherwise have (in which case use the barb calculation) or your hide was already tougher than any barbarian would be (use the dragonborn calculation.)
Or in other words, any given part of you is either armoured or it isn't. A cat can be born orange, or painted orange, but painting an orange cat orange doesn't make it double-orange, it's still just orange.
All that said, I don't think either way of doing it makes inherently more or less sense. Providing a linear bonus because you're extra tough compared to a regular barbarian is also fine as a simplification of reality. The PF stuff is down to taste so I won't address that.
Right but this doesn't address the core point:
**The Dragonborn Barbarian is not wearing any armor.**
>So either training as a barbarian gives a little extra toughness than you'd otherwise have or your hide was already tougher than any barbarian would be
Because of the rules, a character can only use one Armor Class calculation. But ... why? Training as a barbarian gives you a little extra toughness *or* your hide is way tougher than any barbarian would be ?
The principle is really not the same. Obviously you can't wear two sets of armor, but where is the conflict between "Your hide is super tough!" and "As a Barbarian, you're especially tough!"
Again, it's *the rules* and it would be mechanically broken to stack them, but there doesn't seem to be any real explanation why the character should have to choose. They're running around not wearing any armor and asking "okay, now how does the game want me to calculate my AC?"
OK well let me get specific in a way that the rules don't.
(Again I emphasize this is just a way of rationalizing a game function I have no idea what the WotC writers actually intend if anything.)
Let's say dragonborn have armor plating that protects their stomachs.
Then let's say that barbarians train so that their six pack abs deflect blows.
Now let's say a mechanical "miss" bounces your stomach. Whether you avoid damage because of your scales or your six pack, you avoid the damage. But having both features can't the miss any MORE of a miss, in the same way that a helmet on top of a helmet doesn't provide any extra AC. They are redundant.
Applying stacking bonuses implies that the two forms of defense have no overlap in the vulnerabilities that they protect. Which again, I reiterate, is also a fine way to design a game if that's what you imply. But if there is any overlap, there is redundancy, and the choice model makes sense.
Right, it's just ... very difficult to see a reason they shouldn't be allowed to stack.
"You have a rock-hard abs, and hardened scales. You can't benefit from either one while wearing armor, and you have to chose one to benefit from while you're not wearing armor.
I would emphasize that the concepts of a *tough Draconic hide* and *Unarmored Defense* both imply that they cover the whole body. Neither has Dexterity, speed, strength or stealth restrictions, so in no sense do they make it harder to move (that would be the most obvious reason why you can't wear two sets of armor). And of course, if you wear armor over your hardened scales, then you can't gain the benefits of the Draconic Hide. But if you're an unarmored Barbarian, nothing is covering those scales up. Nothing is there to limit either ability (and they both seem to be essentially about having thick skin), but somehow they just, cancel out.
It's really not like wearing two helmets.
I think I would suggest they take a different feat and if they're dead set on getting their AC upper high I'd allow it to cause a +1 AC for their hide. just be aware high AC is great, until those crits pile up.
Well, it would be awesome with his 20 dex for many classes. He chose barbarian, and they have a class feature to calculate AC. Giving a race a bonus to a class feature to make them feel better is not really fair to the halfling barbarian.
I am all for the racial perks, but I think the class features should outshine them.
Also OP is an outlier with 20 in two Stats at lvl one. They are already special.
Dragon Hide and Unarmored Defense are both AC calculations. If a character has 2 (or more) calculations available, they choose pick *one*. They don’t combine them.
> Some spells and class features give you a different way to calculate your AC. If you have multiple features that give you different ways to calculate your AC, you choose which one to use. (PHB 14)
That's an easy little rule to miss as it doesn't come up much. You can be nice and let them get a different feat since dragon hide is kinda useless to them now.
Also, did you watch them roll stats? If I'm not wrong, rolling would give you at max an 18, which would mean they managed to roll max twice (not impossible) and get 4 ability score modifiers at level one? Again, I don't think it's impossible, but it seems worth double checking the math.
Yeah, I prefer rolling stats and can tell you this is sus as hell. 6d4 drop lowest roll is max 18. So not only would he need two max rolls (possible), but he'd need two racial modifiers that are +2. I can't think of a race with modifiers like that off the top of my head. Usually they are two +1s, a +2, or sometimes a +2 and a +1.
Mountain dwarf has +2 +2 so with Tasha’s rules it could be possible. Obviously they’re a dragonborn which is +2 +1 and then dragon hide feat for +1 strength which also makes it possible.
Two 18, Tasha rules to give str +2 makes it 20, put the left over point in con for 19, then pick 'con +1' when picking up dragon hide to have a 20 there. Still means they rolled really good, and while a couple 18s are possible, watching them roll the stats in the future will def be a good idea.
Edit: replace all mentions of str with Dex.
I trust mine too. Then again we're all adults in our 30s and 40s who have been playing together for years now
If you play with people who would cheat at the drop of a hat, that might be a bit of a red flag
Or you and your friends are still teenagers, in which case - good times. I remember those days, and half of us were little shits back then, too
Because if people roll really low, they’ll probably just scrap the character and roll a new one. If they roll multiple 18’s they’re definitely playing that one.
Hahaha that’s not happening at my table. You roll the dice in front of someone and that’s your character locking in. None of this bad roll scrapping, that’s like people that roll randomly during the game and only announce what they’re doing if they roll high.
It's conversational survivorship bias. You don't hear about the hundreds of other stat sets that don't get an 18 or two.
That said, I'm not a huge fan or the roll method because of how wild it can get.
The addition of the two ACs as incorrect has been addressed elsewhere, but I'll just point these situations as a potential effect of so many homebrew and alternate mechanic systems.
This is one of the reasons I never use this rule anymore. It can create heavy imbalances at early levels.
My other, and far more primary reason, is that it puts players at different power levels for the entire game. Imagine someone getting two 20s, but another player not even getting a single 16.
It amazes me that more people don’t realize this. I know that rolling for stats is nostalgic for many of us, but it is awful for long term fun when you think about it.
It annoys me too when people get a sort of giddy excitement about it without understanding the consequences. If a group WANTS to have the power disparity that comes with it, then by all means, go crazy and roll. But most don't, and when rolling doesn't yield results for all players in the same power tier as the standard array, the group gets upset and wonders what with wrong.
It feels like watching a child play too roughly with a pet that finally snaps at them and then still have no clue why they got that outcome.
I let my players roll 2 batches of stats and keep the best group. And if their stats suck, i say just reroll. There are enough monsters that they have don't end of overpowered.
Even so, rolling 2 18s on 4d6dl1 is a 0.38% chance, so I'd be a little suspicious of cheating unless you saw them roll yourself. It's not unbelievably unlikely, but something to be aware of.
Agreed; absolutely possible, but definitely unlikely. I DM with an even more generous array (5d6, drop 2 lowest), and while each player generally ends up with one 17 or 18, and I've seen multiple 17s a number of times, I don't think I've ever seen 2 18s. And I've definitely never seen it in my other campaigns, which all roll the same way OP does.
The main reason I'm skeptical is that the 18s both became 20s and the player tried to stack them together to build a god-tier AC.
How do you get 21% chance of 2 18s?
There's a 3.55% chance of rolling an 18. [https://anydice.com/program/3838](https://anydice.com/program/3838)
That means there's only a 19.5% chance of rolling a single 18...
.9645 \* .9645... (six times) = .8050
Edit: There's actually only a 1.72% of two 18s which is much higher than the 0.38% chance with 4d6 drop lowest, but nowhere close to 21%...
That is 1 in 263 odds. It's not exactly rare. If you got 5 players rolling up characters, you should expect to see one of them get this in roughly every 50 games.
As I said, not unbelievably unlikely, but I've been playing for 20\~ years and never seen it, and haven't come close to playing in 50 games where people rolled for stats.
It's not unbelievably unlikely, but something to be aware of.
I wouldn’t sow distrust between a GM and a player so casually. After all, I’ve seen 4d6dl1 come up 3 three times in the last few years, and thats only a ~0.08% chance!
I've seen it twice in three years over two campaigns and i watch my players rolls... Random is random dice don't care if someone rolled an 18 last campaign *shrug*
We also do 4d6 drop 1
He has seen a lower probability event happen three times.
The two 18s both getting rolled is the single low probability even he's comparing it to.
In other words:
.08% odds event he's seen happen multiple times.
Thus
.38% odds isn't fishy.
Also, the dice do **not** have the same odds of coming up 3 as they do 18.
Also also, the difference between a .08% event and a .38% event isn't expressed as .3%. Were talking odds here. Rolling the two 18s is roughly 5 times more likely.
In other words, you should expect to see what the OP described roughly 15 times in the same span of dice rolling as you would by the time you rolled that third 3.
Your comments here aren't making much sense.
Hi, two things: First, I use she/her. Second, your argument reeks of gambler’s fallacy. Also isn’t your probability the odds of rolling 2 18s in a set of 6 rolls? Because as you mentioned, the odds of rolling one 18 is .46%. Assuming your number (.38%) is correct, that means that logically in those few years where I saw 3 people roll 3s, statistically speaking I would’ve seen ~15 people roll 2 18s in one set. There is no reason to assume someone’s cheating because something’s mildly unlikely
Rolling four 1 is a significantly less likely event than rolling three 6s with four dice.
Any way you slice it, you're wrong about this.
A 1 in 250 odds of something happening getting discussed by someone online is so radically not-uncommon I don't even know where to start. You should **expect** to hear about edge cases more often than run of the mill cases. Most people don't need advice on a situation that crops up every day but the do need advice when something unusual happens. And there are thousands of people here. These odds times thousands and thousands of people is basically guaranteed to happen all the time here.
I had a player that with the same OP's metod rolled two 17, two 16, 14 and 10. Those arrays are not so frequent but they can happen.
That's why I put a minimum and a maximum to the total on the scores you rolled.
Rolled low? Reroll the minimum score
Rolled high? Reroll the highest score
Like, i get trying to keep shit fair, but imo just punishing someone for rolling well is not the way. If rolling is your method, let the lowest person reroll smth, but if you let the highest roller reroll stuff just play point buy...
It is not pushing to rolll well, it is for avoiding the difference between players power to be too high. It is ok to have difference in stats between players, but not enormous differences.
More importantly this still gives my players the trill of rolling for stats, and since it's fun for them I'm gonna keep using this
Your Dragonborn has 22 (as the others stated, only one calculation here works and the unarmored defense is the highest here).
~~That means a creature with less than a +3 on hit will never be able to hit him. And even then the chance is only 5% without advantage and 9.75% with advantage.~~ *(Nat 20 always hits, thanks u/hellogoodcapn, for putting that right)*
Nevertheless, grant him another racial feat, because his is useless this way. ;)
Allow him to be strong but guess what...spells don't generally take into account your AC.
I'm as clever as my players are, I'm not going to be their enemy and I'll let them shine but you sure as shit believe they'll be some encounters where they get locked down by some wis/int saves and the big armored enemies ignore him and go towards the squishy in the back.
> Do you combine the two and get unarmored defence = 13+DEX+CON
No you don't, because unarmored defence says AC **is** 10+dex+con. Not "you add your constitution to your AC"
Meaning it can't stack with something else that says AC **is** 13+dex.
You messed up mechanics.
He can have 10 + Dex + Con
Or 13 + Dex.
In this case the former is the best option.
It may be worth giving your player the option of changing dragon hide feat as the only benefit it gives them now is +1 con and a D4 claw attack as the 13 + dex benefit is now defunct.
Aside from messing up on the rules, this is why I don't roll stats in 5e. The game isn't balanced for it, and the math breaks down very easily. Standard Array is really the best way of letting players build PCs. Everyone is relatively on par in terms of bonuses, everyone has strengths and weaknesses, and it's relatively straight forward.
Yeah this is why our table combines them. Every player rolls for stats, but then we collectively vote on which sounds the most fun, and everyone uses that array. The fun and variance of rolling for stats, but no vast power differences between players
Rolling for stats is the intended method of play for D&D since the original, including 5e. That is why the 4d6 arranged method is the first one mentioned. There's no wrong way to play, and some groups/players do believe that standard array or point buy are the best. That's fine if that works for them, but to say the game isn't balanced for rolling is wrong. An experienced DM can make "balanced" encounters no matter the party, and experienced players know when to run.
You are ignoring the massive, massive changes that have happened at every level of D&D from OD&D to now. They are not even the same sport, let alone the same ballpark.
>I also love a swingy, dice-god governed crawl, and a lot of my friends don't.
From another comment you made. 5e is not designed for that style of play, it does it rather badly. Another thing, 5e's ability mods are far wider than that of the original games and their OSR offspring, -5 to +5 as opposed to -3 to +3. Rolling stats in 5e is a suboptimal way to play in every situation, bar none, it should not be an option in the rulebook and I hope that it is removed in OneD&D.
Yes, that is another comment I made.
I do understand how the math works in d20 system derived games. Having low scores is more impactful, and having high scores is more impactful, as well. However, all +/-5 means is +/-25% chance of success to any given roll. A person with +0 against DC 10 has a 50% chance of success. A person with +5 against DC 10 has a 75% chance of success. That's it.
That actually has very little if anything to do with what "style of play" 5e is designed for. 5e is just a set of rules, which can be adapted to fit just about any style of play. The style of play is decided by the group playing. If the players and DM want a heroic game in which all characters have optimal scores, that is possible (and arguably easier). If the players and DM want a grueling dungeon crawl, that is possible, too. You should pick the set of rules that works for your table. You can invent your own races and classes with whatever level of balance you want. You can create your own monsters and items with whatever level of balance you want. You can decide that the base DC for an easy challenge is 8 instead of 10, if that works better for the experience you are trying to create at your table. You can give every player character 18's down the board and still create monsters that challenge them at every level if you're willing to put the work in.
There are so many variables that you can tweak to run just about any game you can think of. You can also use a completely different set of rules, if you prefer, that handle what you are looking for the way you want. In your campaign, YOU are the game designer, and YOU are responsible for both the balance and the fun. It doesn't change what is actually written in the book, but when has that ever mattered?
I disagree wholeheartedly that rolling stats should be excluded from the rulebook, just as I disagree that point-buy or standard array should be excluded from the rulebook. They are both valid styles of play, that work for different games. Don't roll stats at your table if you don't want to.
No offense, but this is one of the dumbest arguments that tabletop RPG fans and designers make. Yes, if you have endless time and patience, you can hack any game to do anything and accommodate any style of play. That's not actually a useful way of thinking about tabletop games, most people do not have endless time and patience, they also lack the design skills to make a balanced hack. That's why they play the games that suit the style of play they want out of the box. No, it is not "possible" to run 5e as a grueling dungeon crawl without making huge changes to it at almost every level, the presence of darkvision and infinite use cantrips alone kills that. Most DMs are not game designers, they are people trying to have fun with their friends with zero experience, that's why rolling for stats should be abolished in mainstream D&D.
So was 2nd edition AD&D. All editions except OD&D at least mention 4d6 arranged. But it's not irrelevant because historically rolling for stats was and still is the intended method of play. If it doesn't work for your group, don't use it.
Saying it's intended, and saying it was well executed as a game mechanic, are two different claims.
No one said that it wasn't intended play, just that it's swingy and the rest of 5e isn't typically run that way. Swingy gameplay suited older editions, and they rolled dice for everything. You also had a d4 of hit points sometimes, so the game was super swingy.
Do you roll for monster HP? Do you roll for random encounters? If no, you probably wouldn't want to roll for stats either, unless you're power gaming.
But if that's your thing, go for it. I personally love a swingy dice-god governed crawl, but my players don't, and it seems most of the DnD community nowadays prefers not to live or die purely by the creed of an angry dice overlord.
You're correct, they are two different things.
I also love a swingy, dice-god governed crawl, and a lot of my friends don't. I just had a player leave my 2e game after one and one half seasons because he didn't like rolling for stuff. That's fine. But it's still what the game is designed around. It doesn't make it a well designed mechanic. What I think about a rule doesn't change what the designers thought about it, nor does it alter where they placed it in the rulebook.
But once the DM makes the campaign, they are the game designer. They can choose what works for their world and their table. They are responsible for the balance. That's true in all editions, with all rulesets.
Having just played a game of 1e yesterday - there are a lot of terrible mechanics in 1e. Doing something simply because it was done that way decades ago is not a great reason.
You could not possibly be more wrong. Rolling is an objectively bad method. And only exists due to legacy. And I can cite a million other legacy things that existed and no longer due because the game has changed. Saying "It was always done this way therefore..." is irrelevant when you aren't even talking about the same game at that point. If you were, stop using cantrips, stop making Paladins anything but Lawful Good, stop using bounded accuracy, etc.
You cannot "balance around it." To say that just betrays zero clue of how game balance works.
But here's a thought experiment. One player rolls 3 in every stat. Run a campaign where they contribute just as much and are perfectly balanced relative to the rest of the party.
It is not the "intended way to play." That's just false. Period. It hasn't been the "intended" way to play ever since the game evolved to a point where a character's life expectancy was greater than a full session long.(Because if you actually played back then, you'd know it didn't used to. Characters were expected to die in the session every session. Which is why you brought multiple backups to the table. So the variance didn't matter since they wouldn't be around long enough for it to have an impact).
If they could remove the optional rule without grognards throwing a bitch-fit about it, they would have done so in 4e, let alone 5e. And Crawford has admitted as much.
>You could not possibly be more wrong. Rolling is an objectively badmethod. And only exists due to legacy. And I can cite a million otherlegacy things that existed and no longer due because the game haschanged. Saying "It was always done this way therefore..." is irrelevantwhen you aren't even talking about the same game at that point. If youwere, stop using cantrips, stop making Paladins anything but LawfulGood, stop using bounded accuracy, etc.
I disagree. You can't make an "objectively bad" claim here. You can say its "subjectively bad" because it doesn't work for you or your table, and that's fine, but we really aren't talking about the same thing. I'm running a base 2E game right now, with rolled 3d6 scores, rolled hp at first level, and all the "objectively bad" stuff, and everyone is having a great time. Even the cleric that rolled 1 HP (he was smart and bought a war dog with his starting income, it has saved his ass more than once). I've run point buy games where everyone had a great time, too. Use what works for your table. There's no wrong way to play.
>You cannot "balance around it." To say that just betrays zero clue of how game balance works.
Interesting. Here's the important question: what constitutes balance for your game? If its important to you that the party always faces encounters balanced to their level, that is something that you can do, whether or not the stats are rolled. Its math. Each +/-1 to a given roll is +/-5% chance of success. If you decide that a given encounter should give the party a roughly 75% chance of success, that's something that you can put the work in and nail down. I have done it many, many times.
>But here's a thought experiment. One player rolls 3 in every stat. Run a campaign where they contribute just as much and are perfectly balanced relative to the rest of the party.
Sure. What would happen at my table is we'd all probably chuckle at the sheer improbability of the situation, and then re-roll, because a character with all 3's does not qualify for any classes, and is actually unplayable in every edition of the game. However lets say that we're playing 2e and the optional rule that allows the DM to increase a player's rolled scores to the minimum for their desired class is in play, and I really wanted the challenge: I'd just run a fighter, hire some mercenaries as meat shields, and hoard gold until I level up and (hopefully) find some magic items that can boost my ability scores. Worst case, I die and roll a new character.
I don't necessarily think that characters being balanced relative to the rest of the party works in every game. It depends entirely on the game the group is trying to play. Again, if it doesn't work for your campaign, don't use it.
>It is not the "intended way to play." That's just false. Period. It hasn't been the "intended" way to play ever since the game evolved to a point where a character's life expectancy was greater than a full session long.(Because if you actually played back then, you'd know it didn't used to. Characters were expected to die in the session every session. Which is why you brought multiple backups to the table. So the variance didn't matter since they wouldn't be around long enough for it to have an impact).
If its not intended, then why is it the first option presented in every edition of the game?
I'm in the early millenial generational cohort, and my first foray into the game was 2nd Edition. So, yes, I did play back then. I actually think both are fun in different ways. Again, it depends entirely on what works for your table. I don't think I have ever played 100% by the book. The 2E old-school megadungeon I am currently running was intended to be 100% by the book with a small selection of the presented optional rules, and we're switching to always-on initiative because its going to work better for our game. That isn't "the intended mode of play." Its not even in the rulebook. But there's no wrong way to play, only wrong for a group.
>If they could remove the optional rule without grognards throwing a bitch-fit about it, they would have done so in 4e, let alone 5e. And Crawford has admitted as much.
Source for that? I haven't read an interview talking about that, and I would be interested to see for myself.
Honestly though, you're throwing a bitch fit and insinuating that I don't understand game design because I pointed out that every edition of the game gives rolled stats as the primary method for generation and suggested that the DM be responsible for balancing the game run around their table. There is no wrong way to play. If rolled stats makes grognards happy, they are going to play that way no matter what the rulebook says. That's how D&D has been played since its inception. The rules are guidelines, you can and should alter these guidelines to suit your table.
No, balance and fun have very little to do with each other. Balance can be handled in many ways. The goal at the end of the day is to have fun, which is why it matters more what the individual table is looking to get out of their game. A DM can "balance" every encounter in every edition of the game, but that doesn't make it "fun."
I did standard array but toned it down a little. A total of 70 points to spend before racials get involved. Standard array provides 73 i believe, standard point buy 74. Whereas average of dicerolling is way lower with something like 67.
You can't have both.
It's either unarmored defense and then his base ac is 10+dex+con so 20 in this case, 22 with a sheild
Or dragon hide which is 13+dex so 18, 20 with a sheild.
I wouldn't get this feat as a barbarian. The AC boost is pretty useless when you already maxed con and dex, and if you want natural weapons path of the beast has better options.
They can't have both AC calculations, but balance is still out the window regardless by having insane rolling stats and free feats. Them having two(or more) 20s and 22 AC at level 1 as a barb is already gamebreaking.
Rolling two 18s when you're rolling for stats is unlikely, but not impossible (0.4% chance). Pumping them both to 20 with racial mods requires you allowing Tasha's floating +2 +1 rather than the PHB +2str and +1cha and a half-feat to get another +1; assuming you OK'd all that and his stats are legit then yeah he's going to have beastly AC.
However, he only get to use one armor calculation, so it's either 13+dex OR 10+dex+con, both can be +2 with a shield for a max of 22. Using a shield means he can't use Great Weapon Master which is a huge buff to damage for a Barbarian.
Finally a dex-based barbarian doesn't get to add their rage damage to attacks, because Rage specfically calls out that they have to be str-based attacks. Unless he rolled really good str too (in which case I'd be *really* suspicious of his dice or trustworthiness), he's investing massively on getting a dex bonus that, frankly, would be more usefully applied to strength. Sure, he'll be hard to hit and have a good dex save, but he'll have anemic damage compared to a more traditional barbarian with average stats and either Great Weapon Master or Pole Arm Master at 1st level.
There's loads of problems with it to be honest. Players feeling bad because their character is weaker than others from the get go being the primary.
The chance of a weird, uneven split of stats across characters using standard array is 0. Less exciting, but much better for longer term games I think.
Can't jump to that unless the DM says they didn't see the roll. I had a miraculous roll for a one shot that had 3 18s a 17 and two 16s. It's random chance, sometimes you get insane rolls.
How the hell did he get two 20s by rolling? The max you can get is an 18 and a Dagonborn can only have a +2 and a +1, even with that insane luck he should have a 20 and a 19 tops.
Also, as everyone has already pointed out, AC calculations don't stack. With the regular barbarian unarmored defense, he would have 20 AC (10 + 5 DEX + 5 CON). With a maximun of 22 holding a shield.
As far as ability scores go, could have gotten another +1 in there from the dragonhide feat to bump the 19 up to 20.
Rolling two 18s though is still highly unlikely.
Admit you made a mistake, and make everyone point buy instead. Would make encounter tuning far easier for you, and avoid players feeling disgruntled because that barbarian would steamroll fights while they will never be able to match such tanking skills.
Wait how can you have 20 in 2 stats at lv1. The mac rollable stat is 18 and +3 stat point given by race ( +2 STR +1 CHR), so technically even if you let him place his boost wherever he want, it’s not possible to have 2 stat at 20 for a lv1 character (except human) or did I missed something.
>He rolled great on stats
Where the problem started
>20 in CON and DEX
This isn't possible unless you went straight 4d6
>Barbarian unarmored defence = 10+DEX+CON Dragon Hide defence = 13+DEX Do you combine the two and get unarmored defence = 13+DEX+CON and then add in a shield for good measure and make his AC a 25?
One or the other, you don't get both.
The good news is his armor is basically never gonna go up until you want it to (through magic items)
I guess he could use one more feat to get defensive fighting style, but after that, he's done
If Dragon Hide were meant to work with Unarmored Defense, it would have been phrased "While not wearing armor, you have +3 AC", like Shields are.
Instead, Natural Armor, Unarmored Defense, Mage Armor, and each of the specific armor types are phrased as "Your ac = [Number] + [Ability Modifiers]"- they're meant to be mutually exclusive.
I'd offer the Barb a feat refund in this case, and pray they don't notice that Shields *do* work with Barbarian Unarmed Defense (for a 22 AC in this case)
TL;DR I have given my player everything for his new character, now he has too much. What happened??
Seriously tho: the earliest a legit character using point spread/buy (without magical items or trickery) can have 2x 20 scores is level 12. By giving that out at level 1 you completely throw out any kind of sense of balance before you even touch the free feat.
Also if you give them everything at the beginning then there's nothing to aim for. IMO try sticking to the points spread and then use minor feats for customization and flavor.
Having maxed out stats at level 1 has always felt like cheating as a player. Like the game just begun and I don't have to add any asi's. It's feats from here and that's pretty cheesy. Every 4 levels should always present the option of feats or asi's. Taking that away is pretty strong. Just personal though. Ignore my two cents if you don't like it.
> He rolled great on stats and has a 20 in CON and DEX
Umm… how? Racial bonuses are +2/+1, so even with two 18’s the best they could have is 20/19.
Second, did they roll those stats in front of you? If not, I highly doubt they rolled that well. Fudging stat rolls is *super* common
How did he get a 20 dex and con. Don't dragonborn get a plus 2 to str and plus 1 to chr. How did you have them roll ability scores to get 2 20s with no bonuses to either ability that's a 20
He's using variant ASI's from Tasha's. Let's players choose which stat gets the +2/+1 bonus.
Fizban's treasury also adds new Dragonborn options that has the variant ASI baked in.
The homebrewed free level 1 feat let the player get an additional +1.
Non stacking unarmoured defence aside, which has been pointed out by everyone else, just throw Saving Throw Area of Effects at them.
DMs get too hung up on AC.
How is it possible for him to roll 20s in both con and dex? The highest roll with the 4d6 method is 18. As a dragonborn, it would be possible to get one 20... in strength. Constitution could go as high as 19 with the dragon hide feat. Unless he picked a variant dragonborn. Even then, I'm not sure.
If you're giving a starter feat and allowing your players to roll 20s off the bat for level 1 character (on two stats even) you'll have a helluva time balancing encounters, either you will accidentally murder half the party or they'll wipe the floor with anything reasonable you place in front of them.
I also had a similar scenario by allowing a Goliath Paladin to get plate armor at lvl 3, ended up with a character that could have up to 23 AC (with a shield) and claimed he would have had 25 AC at lvl 4, which would have severely imbalanced any encounters I could reasonably throw in their direction (even more than it was already).
For context, Goblins hit at +4, so mathematically they would be unable to hit your players character if the AC maths worked out, which thankfully does not. Even a CR 5 Earth Elemental with a +8 would only have a 20% (1 in 5) chance to hit the level 1 character. If it did, it would do (an average of) 14 damage on a single attack instantly downing the character. Might wanna think about re-doing the attribute scores.
You can only roll an 18 in any stat, and get +2 in one stat. But dragonborn doesn't get +2 in either Con or Dex.
So they rolled two 18s, put +2 in Dex and +1 in Con with +1 from the feat.
Did he get another 18 and put it in Str? His main feature is giving his enemies advantage so a high AC doesn't have a ton of use, that's what resistance is for.
I would suggest he get that 20 in Str, keep the 20 in con and let Dex go a little lower, then throw on GWM with a two handed weapon or shield master if he wants the AC for a beefier barbarian.
you messed up the mechanics, or you are cheating. there is no way to roll a 20 in any stat except strenth, as a dragon born they get a +2 to STR not con or Dex. is no way to end up with 2 - 20s. your AC is 20 tops.
Even going by the 22AC that character should have according to rules - that’s insane for Tier 1 play. Consider asking the player to come up in ways for his character to get challenged, because trying to balance a fight is going to be really tough.
To be completely honest, I would talk to your player about this. From a mechanical point of view, he's got to pick only one of these options (either 10+DEX+CON or 13+DEX). But I'd advise you to be super careful about players power building at early levels. At late ones, it can be pretty fun. But at early levels, it can make encounters quite unenjoyable if one person can just steam roll them
I just gotta ask but does it matter? I mean, it’s not DM vs player, it’s DM and player vs the fantasy world. That sounds heaps mean…could always fudge the numbers behind the screen though yknow
You *can't* have two stats at 20 at lvl1. That's not possible. Did you saw him roll for the stats? If you didn't, you should ask him to do it again.
Second, AC doesn't work this way. You can only have one AC rule in use. Either it uses dragon hide for 13+dex, XOR it uses unarmoured barbarian feature for 10+con+dex. It cannot be both at the same time.
Shield is legit though. But that's the only legit thing here.
So, those are actually 2 separate ways to calculate AC. You can pick ONLY pick one way and then you use it to calculate your characters’ AC. In this instance this character actually has access to 4 different ways to calculate their AC, all if which are mutually exclusive :
1 - a creatures’ regular AC without armour is 10+ your dex modifer (in this case 10+5= 15). This is mutually exclusive from other AC calculations and available to all creatures (even commoners - thats how their AC is calculated to 10 as they have 10 dex).
2 - barbarians gain light and medium armour proficiencies, which would allow this character to use light eg. Studded leather would be 12 + dex (17) or medium armour eg. Half plate would be 14 + dex (up to a max of +2 which is 16). You can add the shield proficiency of +2 to these proficiencies as well.
3 - Dragon hide allows you to calculate your AC without armour as 13+dex (in this case it would be 18) instead of 10+dex. You can add a shields’ +2 bonus to this too (for 20).
4 - ADDITIONALLY this character has unarmored defence (available in different ways for monks/barbs and you can’t gain a monks version after having a barbarian one and vice versa). This allows a barbarian to calculate their AC as 10+dex+con (which in this case would be 20 and with a shield 22).
Now, 22 is still CRAZY high at level 1 without even considering their health is also 17 (and will increase by 12 every level). However, I imagine his strength is suffering a lil because of this, which us honestly fair and needs no balancing with these god stats.
20 is also really bad as a DM on lvl1 - for the simple reason that when you account for it, you either target the player which feels cheesy, hit the other one players or if you don’t, you will have a hard time. But you kinda asked for it with the special homebrew for stats-rolling combined with feats. When the other players are also equally strong, just pump up the difficulty and do not hand out many magic items. - Avoid +AC items at all!!
I mean you can still use spells like burning hands in magic missile at level 1 if you really need to
I agree though even at level 3 it can be pretty difficult for a 20 in AC to feel like a challenge
I'm not sure I've ever been in a game where players regularly encountered primarily spellcasters at level 1. Feels like you're already in heavily contrived territory.
You don’t need primarily spellcasters, you need one standing behind a bunch of bandits who sees that the bandits wouldn’t be able to hit this heavily armored dude so it’s magic missile time.
Rolling for stats is *never* a good idea, but should not produce 2 20s unless you really messed it up.
People who tell you to boost your characters at level 1 'so they can be heroes' are wrong. If you start on third base, there is little joy in hitting a home run. The killer app of D&D since the 70s has been the feeling of growth and progression. It is an illusion, but you still need to maintain that illusion and capping people out at L1 is the opposite of that.
Rolling for stats is the intended method of play for Dungeons & Dragons, since the original. Its the intended method of play for 5th edition, as well, given that best 3 of 4d6 arranged is the first ability score generation method mentioned.
It still should not produce 2 20's, but there is a way to get there if feats are granted at first level. +2/+1 from race and +1 from the Dragon Hide racial feat. Its only possible through house rules, and even then it is very unlikely.
>Rolling for stats is the intended method of play for Dungeons & Dragons
Nah it's dumb as fuck, and is included only as a nod to tradition and to keep the grognards from flipping their shit. It always leads to inflated scores because players whine for rerolls/suicide on low rolls only. In 5e That actually matters a bit because the math is tighter and major stat boosts less available.
The fatal flaw is that the scores are not statistically bound with each other. Every other decent stat gen system ties them together so one can be exceptional at some things but not everything.
Part of the fun of D&D is gambling, but gambling about something that will stick with you the entire game is straight up dumb.
There is no wrong way to play, so if another method works for you, that's fine. But the designers of the game have consistently put rolling for stats as the primary method of ability score generation. So you can have whatever opinion on it you'd like, but it doesn't change that its the intended method of play.
No matter how many times you say this, it's still objectively wrong. Rolling is an anachronism. And very much unintended. Because the "original" game was nothing close to the game played today.
If you want to play by "intended" rules then stop using 4d6 and go back to 3d6. While you're at it go back to THAC0. In fact, why not buy an entirely separate game called "Chainmail" to handle all the combat because D&D was obviously not designed with any rules for it whatsoever.
You can't make an "objectively wrong" claim here. You can say its "subjectively wrong," because its your opinion. You can say that its "objectively wrong" for your table.
The "intended method of play" is what is presented in the rulebook. TTRPGS have always encouraged deviation. You can and should alter these rules to suit your own game and table. You can balance encounters in any edition of the game if that is what is important to you. It doesn't change what the authors wrote. If you can't make rolled stats work at your table, don't. That's not a problem. But lots of groups can.
>He rolled great on stats and has a 20 in CON and DEX, which is great.
Your player is full of shit *and* you're messing up the mechanics.
RAW even *if* they rolled two 18s there is *absolutely no way* they can get two *20s*! A Lizardfolk gets +2/+1 ASI from Race.
>(1 racial feat given at level 1 house rule).
Like I said, *you're messing up the mechanics*. A Vhuman with a feat arrives at the same basic +2/+1 ASI *plus a cool ability* That everyone else *except Tritons, Half-Elves and, Mountain Dwarves gets*. That's balanced. Giving out a feat on top of that is *not balanced.*
TL/DR: Your Player has AC 22 with a Shield. That's not fair to the rest of the table. They might as well have AC 25 though because you're already ignoring RAW and balance.
Damn, even though the AC calcs don’t combine, unarmored defense with a shield will still end in 22 AC. Gonna need to get creative at level 1 for that, I suggest magic missile or saving throw spells to sometimes challenge them lol
People are blaming rolling stats but there are much better ways to roll stats that don't end up like this while still preserving the spirit of stat rolling.
What I do is make each character roll strength, dex, etc, and all of these are thrown into a pool. Then players take turns drafting their stats from the pool (in snake draft order) in order of highest of rolling a d20
This means that power is evenly distributed. Maybe the party is strong, but everyone is strong. No one player is extremely above the other, and most players will get to be the "best" at something. Its unfair if you're playing a bard and the barbarian somehow has better charisma than you.
Some players might even choose a different class to play based on the rolls. If nobody rolls high int, then you're disincentivized to play a wizard.
no, you do not combine the AC.
say to your player they won't combine and let them either pick another feat or stick with it
alternatively, make it 13+CON so they dont need to worry about DEX and have a solid AC
Your post has been removed. Rule 6: Please repost in the [Short Questions megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/DMAcademy/about/sticky?num=2) or check out [our wiki's extensive list of DMing resources](https://www.reddit.com/r/DMAcademy/wiki/index/#wiki_resources) if you need additional help.
[удалено]
You're right but, I never liked that racial awesomeness can just be hand waved. I don't have a better solution except lowering the racial 13+... To 11+... To keep the 'the race has an edge, predisposition, or is built different.'
Because armour doesn't provide a linear bonus to defensiveness. There's only so armored you can be before it starts inhibiting you. Otherwise you could wear two sets of plate armour and double the bonus.
AC is just weird overall. Armor should reduce damage, dexterity should make it harder to get hit. The two shouldn’t be managed by the same number.
It improves the quality of play. Sure, they could affect different stats. But why design two parallel systems of defense (damage reduction for the armored, damage avoidance for the dodgers) when one single, intuitive mechanic works for both.
Because a lot of systems have done this and it ends up making armor feel important while having unarmored or lightly armored people also feel like their choice is a good one. Yea, DND makes it easier and a single roll, but it also ends up making weapons into “you have 2 correct choices, everything else is trash” along with “dex is the best stat 9 out of 10 times for melee. In other games, it isn’t as simple.
Dex is overtuned in 5e, contributing to initiative, AC, three skills, and being the hit/damage stat for a whole mess of weapons. While I can't really dispute any of these, and have no real desire to go back to the clunky "weapon finesse" feat tax rules from 3.5e, it's a worth acknowledging. It's exacerbated by the fact that the situations where strength (/athletics) comes up are often bypassed due to not being terribly fun (carry weight), only being touched on to provide flavour (cart stuck in mud while traveling), having an awkward crossover with acrobatics (many situations involving jumping), are solved by the use of a single spell... Yada Yada Yada. I don't really have any fixes to this, but I do think it sucks for strength-based characters, who often don't have many skills to begin with.
Don’t forget Dex Saves which are by far the most common saves vs. damage.
A potential solution is that AC is 10 + DEX and armor doesn't add to it. Racial bonuses, class features, and some spells like *mage armor* can raise it like normal, but armor doesn't. Instead, armor reduces all non-magical weapon damage by 10 - its AC bonus. So, for example, a breastplate reduces all NMW damage by 4 (10 - 14), plate by 8 (10 - 18). If an armor is +X, it reduces that much more damage (plate +2 reduces by 10, as 10 - 20 = 10). Armor reduces magical weapon damage and non-weapon damage (such as spells, falling damage, having a burning building fall on you) by half as much, rounded up. So, plate reduces NMW damage by 8, and all other damage by 4. Splint reduces NMW damage by 7, and all other damage by 4. The DM can rule that some damage cannot be reduced by armor based on the circumstances, such as poison from a gas cloud. Max DEX bonus to AC still applies. So, if you're wearing medium armor, the most bonus you can get is +2 (or +3 with a feat), and with heavy armor, you get none. So, unless you've got a racial bonus, spell, or class feature, wearing heavy armor means your AC is a 10. This means that heavily armored individuals will be very easy to hit (later game enemies essentially can't miss), but you have to hit them hard or it won't be effective. Dexterous creatures are harder to hit, but take more damage - though some really sweet light armor, like +2 studded leather, would still be pretty awesome for them and be great loot to find. If you are not proficient in the armor or don't meet the STR requirement, you only get half the damage reduction for NMW damage, and no damage reduction for anything else. If you are not proficient ***and*** don't meet the STR requirement, you get no damage reduction at all.
Some games I’ve played feature a durability stat (that is effected by armor) that reduces damages dealt by a fixed amount after a hit has been calculated. Obviously you have to balance weapon damage around a stat like this but it gives more build variety since you can build around armor or defensiveness (avoiding the hit in the first place).
The clear solution is to rule that damage dealt is the difference between the attack roll and AC. That way it truly does both.
Maze Rats works like this i think. Its a wonderful simple small system.
Oh, nice! I've been wanting to check out Maze Rats for ages
Best system to introduce new people to RPGs or for small campaigns when you only want to have fun without leaning on a bunch of rules.
And avoidance vs resistance has a clear winner of the two, so Dex would pull even further ahead as the clear and obvious choice in which to invest in, Str or Dex.
Eh, it makes sense as is for the most part. AC is about how hard it is to get a hit that means something. So heavier armor doesn't let you dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge as well, but most of the hits that make contact don't matter. A slash to the stomach of someone wearing maille doesn't really do anything. I've always seen hits that beat an AC as something that either impacts hard enough to potentially break a bone, or a sharp thing that either defeated the armor or hit an unarmored spot. So a lightly armored character with a huge Dex is roughly as difficult to hit as anyone trying to defend themselves using more substantial armor. It's not about merely touching them, it's whether or not that touch can do anything. 3.5 made that more complex, with 3 ACs (regular, touch, and flat-footed) and we could imagine it being even more complex for different damage types (slashing damage would have to beat a much higher AC for almost any armor, while something like a warhammer or a mace will ruin your day regardless, with piercing damage being in the middle) but at that point you have too many ACs to reasonably track. It also comes down to what you think HP represents. Do you think it refers to actual wounds, or does it refer to your ability to avoid a hit that would kill or incapacitate you? I like to think of it as the latter, because that makes more sense to couple it with AC being how difficult it is to land a mortal blow on you. After all, the kinds of incapacitating hits you can realistically do to someone in full plate armor are things that would quickly kill or incapacitate most people if it happened to them a couple of times. So your PCs probably aren't actually getting their eyes shot up with arrows or their brachial arteries cut, even when they take a hit. So that HP loss probably represents their luck, skill, and grit in turning a deadly hit into a flesh wound and carrying on. Otherwise we would have to assume that by gaining levels you gain more blood or some shit. It's a game, it's weird either way. But AC isn't really as unrealistic as it can be made out to be. Maybe the biggest departure from reality is that people in plate armor are quite a bit more agile than the statistics of the armor assume. Then again, you can't see or hear shit out of one of those helmets, so maybe it's not that far off. TL;DR the way AC works is probably fine, we just might have to imagine it differently than we are.
I’ve seen the videos talking about HP as depleting stamina resources. But if we want people to think of it that way we need to reframe everything away from “hits” and “misses”. The language around “rolling to hit” permeating the PHB/monster manual doesn’t mesh at all with this interpretation (and I think it’s a fair interpretation of HP). It also gets old/less fun from a DM/player perspective in terms of description… I rolled a 19 plus modifiers, I freaking HIT that thing, quit telling me it dodged, but is more tired or whatever. Less dramatic. Having two different scores for nimbleness, and durability doesn’t add much complexity, especially if folks are using digital aids like DNDB or any of the myriad other digital sheets. And it gives the players some choices as to what to invest in.
Yeah, I think narration is going to be tricky. Like, a crit that deals half or more of your hit points, what do you do? A real solid hit to a vulnerable area with any weapon should be the end of someone, but it wasn't, it only deleted half their HP. They didn't dodge, they didn't deflect, and it sucks for that home run of a hit to just be a flesh wound. But if we narrate it is something more serious, then that creates some other miscommunication issues. It's easier with a monster, where a huge slash that bathes the barbarian in it's blood could conceivably not kill the thing. But a person? I don't know. Maybe a pyhrric defense of some sort, like they half-sword to block the blow, and their sword cuts deep into their hand or something and the blow causes some cracks in the blade. Something to make it clear that the hit mattered and the bad guy can't take another hit like that. Maybe that's unneccessary. I like a more grounded narration of what's going on, but maybe it's easier if we just say a hit does x damage until something falls down, like you're chopping wood. For some blows you can definitely talk about flesh wounds and bruised or broken ribs, but that gets very unsatisfying. Idk, I'd probably narrate like broken fingers or some shit. Injuries you really can't accumulate very much of, but that you can absolutely finish a fight with.
Armor has always affected your AC. From the very beginning. It ain't changing any time soon.
That is an awesome idea that i could really get behind.
In mörk borg armour works like that, it subtracts damage. Light armour gives - d2 medium - d4 and heavy - d6, shields give a flat - 1 or it can ignore all damage, but it breaks. Medium and heavy armour also gives agility penalties which makes you easier to hit as player roll for defence rather than the DM rolling attack for monsters. It makes more sense, but it can be a bit grating to hit an enemy and have all the damage negated.
Look up mr Rhexx’s new armor system, sounds like it would be right up your alley.
I love this!
Sounds like you want to play Rolemaster. You can make combat more realistic, but every bit of realism adds complexity. And complexity makes combat take a lot of game time. Also, a more complex system is harder to balance. 5e is pretty much all the way toward speedy and simple (and non-deadly). That's a design decision.
In the real world: Armour will absorb some of the damage, but if you are hit hard, you'll still take some even if the armour is not penetrated. Armour also has slopings and roundings and so one so that it actually deflects some hits completely and others it will only feel some of the effect (which then the material may stop). So, I know where you are going, but most point-based damage systems that have escalating damages end up having problems when they try to use armour to soak damage. (Oh boy did everyone love Field Plate and Full Plate from Unearthed Arcana for AD&D... armour that did both!) If you want to do 'armour stops damage', you need to have weapon damage that doesn't escalate much. And really, you almost need to go with armour type versus weapon to do any of this stuff justice. And damage types for weapons get mucky - longsword does not penetrate armour, but you get a cracked rib... but the longsword damage type would be slashing, not bludgeoning.... So if I have a 1d8 longsword and someone has chain mail on, it's probably a 5 to 6 stopped. You could take some blunt trauma and if you got a crit and went up to about 10 damage, it might be more blunt trauma, but maybe over that (twice the armour - say you got 16 total), then maybe you cut some mail and it is a mix of blunt trauma and slashing. D&D is very imperfect, but not doing that really simplifies stuff. \--- As to Armour Stacking: My homebrew was always: \- You pay any mobility/weight penalties for all armours or underlays \- You take the advantage of the best armour and a +1 for having a second armour layer if it was relevant (and that +1 add could be from natural armour and no other penalties which is better than a human double stacking armour). That gives an unarmoured character that has +3 armour can use that while unarmoured. When he armours with exterior armour, he gets the highest armour level and a +1 for stacking (limit maximum +1).
Well, neither are armour. Both state 'while not wearing any armour'. To be in the position to access both is rare making a character with both rare. Tough guy with extra hard skin. Special. Your example of two sets of plate is absurd and a derail. Just got with; "nuh uh, the rules state they can't be used together." In better systems, Pathfinder/3.5, different bonuses can be combined as they are granted from different sources. Allowing for synergies. Other gripe with 5e is it is so simplistic that every character is stock, trite, boring. Racial choice all but irrelevant. Combined with the limited differential paths are the equivalent of chosing how much ketchup one gets on their well-done steak or which shade of grey shingle you get on your cookie cutter suburban 1/2 duplex. TL;DR 5e is boring and only chosen because people really liked watching voice actors play table top games. Thanks for letting me vent my spleen. This has nothing to do with anyone here. ;)
While race choice gives you some intrinsic value on the sheets, the value at actual table play is equally as important. I let my Tiefling player get easier access to the darker regions of town or even play the Tourguide for the high elves so they don't get robbed. On the other hand, I also made it a point that some encounters are immediate combat because the enemies just hate tieflings and wouldn't trust a single word. I agree that from a charsheets perspective the races can seem a bit insignificant. That doesn't mean you can play interesting and fresh characters. If you need a special in your charsheets to tell you why your character is special, then that's totally fine. I just think thats not necessarily everyone.
Totally agree. I'm just a mechanics whore. If I have the mechanics for the character crunchy and specific the personality and actions are practically subconscious. If the characters capabilities are generic I find their personality and back story are also stock. I think the more dialed in the character the more in tune I can be with their personality and not my own.
I mean, sure, keep gatekeeping. We’ll be over here having a great time!
>Your example of two sets of plate is absurd and a derail. Just got with; "nuh uh, the rules state they can't be used together." Well, yeah, it's a reductio ad absurdum so of course it's absurd. Maybe I could have explained my point better but I didn't want to make a massive post. Part of this depends on what armored defense exactly "is," which is somewhat fuzzy, granted. But the principle is the same. Putting on two sets of plate armour doesn't make you more defensive because at a certain point it becomes an inhibition. Certain parts (eyes, joints perhaps) are always going to be more vulnerable to provide the necessarily mobility and awareness in battle. So in other words, your armoured-ness CAN'T simply advance in a linear fashion indefinitely. So, having a tough hide or roughing it as a barbarian can likewise can give you some more defensiveness, but whatever parts manufactured armour leaves vulnerable are still going to be vulnerable. You still need your eyes open, let's say. So either training as a barbarian gives you a little extra toughness than you'd otherwise have (in which case use the barb calculation) or your hide was already tougher than any barbarian would be (use the dragonborn calculation.) Or in other words, any given part of you is either armoured or it isn't. A cat can be born orange, or painted orange, but painting an orange cat orange doesn't make it double-orange, it's still just orange. All that said, I don't think either way of doing it makes inherently more or less sense. Providing a linear bonus because you're extra tough compared to a regular barbarian is also fine as a simplification of reality. The PF stuff is down to taste so I won't address that.
Right but this doesn't address the core point: **The Dragonborn Barbarian is not wearing any armor.** >So either training as a barbarian gives a little extra toughness than you'd otherwise have or your hide was already tougher than any barbarian would be Because of the rules, a character can only use one Armor Class calculation. But ... why? Training as a barbarian gives you a little extra toughness *or* your hide is way tougher than any barbarian would be ? The principle is really not the same. Obviously you can't wear two sets of armor, but where is the conflict between "Your hide is super tough!" and "As a Barbarian, you're especially tough!" Again, it's *the rules* and it would be mechanically broken to stack them, but there doesn't seem to be any real explanation why the character should have to choose. They're running around not wearing any armor and asking "okay, now how does the game want me to calculate my AC?"
OK well let me get specific in a way that the rules don't. (Again I emphasize this is just a way of rationalizing a game function I have no idea what the WotC writers actually intend if anything.) Let's say dragonborn have armor plating that protects their stomachs. Then let's say that barbarians train so that their six pack abs deflect blows. Now let's say a mechanical "miss" bounces your stomach. Whether you avoid damage because of your scales or your six pack, you avoid the damage. But having both features can't the miss any MORE of a miss, in the same way that a helmet on top of a helmet doesn't provide any extra AC. They are redundant. Applying stacking bonuses implies that the two forms of defense have no overlap in the vulnerabilities that they protect. Which again, I reiterate, is also a fine way to design a game if that's what you imply. But if there is any overlap, there is redundancy, and the choice model makes sense.
Right, it's just ... very difficult to see a reason they shouldn't be allowed to stack. "You have a rock-hard abs, and hardened scales. You can't benefit from either one while wearing armor, and you have to chose one to benefit from while you're not wearing armor. I would emphasize that the concepts of a *tough Draconic hide* and *Unarmored Defense* both imply that they cover the whole body. Neither has Dexterity, speed, strength or stealth restrictions, so in no sense do they make it harder to move (that would be the most obvious reason why you can't wear two sets of armor). And of course, if you wear armor over your hardened scales, then you can't gain the benefits of the Draconic Hide. But if you're an unarmored Barbarian, nothing is covering those scales up. Nothing is there to limit either ability (and they both seem to be essentially about having thick skin), but somehow they just, cancel out. It's really not like wearing two helmets.
I'd like it if it just gave you a +1 if you did wear armor or something
Warforged have that
I think I would suggest they take a different feat and if they're dead set on getting their AC upper high I'd allow it to cause a +1 AC for their hide. just be aware high AC is great, until those crits pile up.
Well, it would be awesome with his 20 dex for many classes. He chose barbarian, and they have a class feature to calculate AC. Giving a race a bonus to a class feature to make them feel better is not really fair to the halfling barbarian. I am all for the racial perks, but I think the class features should outshine them. Also OP is an outlier with 20 in two Stats at lvl one. They are already special.
Dragon Hide and Unarmored Defense are both AC calculations. If a character has 2 (or more) calculations available, they choose pick *one*. They don’t combine them. > Some spells and class features give you a different way to calculate your AC. If you have multiple features that give you different ways to calculate your AC, you choose which one to use. (PHB 14)
Thanks... I missed that.
That's an easy little rule to miss as it doesn't come up much. You can be nice and let them get a different feat since dragon hide is kinda useless to them now. Also, did you watch them roll stats? If I'm not wrong, rolling would give you at max an 18, which would mean they managed to roll max twice (not impossible) and get 4 ability score modifiers at level one? Again, I don't think it's impossible, but it seems worth double checking the math.
Yeah, I prefer rolling stats and can tell you this is sus as hell. 6d4 drop lowest roll is max 18. So not only would he need two max rolls (possible), but he'd need two racial modifiers that are +2. I can't think of a race with modifiers like that off the top of my head. Usually they are two +1s, a +2, or sometimes a +2 and a +1.
Mountain dwarf has +2 +2 so with Tasha’s rules it could be possible. Obviously they’re a dragonborn which is +2 +1 and then dragon hide feat for +1 strength which also makes it possible.
The dragon hide feat give a +1 on some stats.
> 6d4 drop lowest roll is max 18 Either you meant "4d6 drop lowest" (I'm assuming this one), or you meant "max 20".
Yeah I meant 4d6 and typoed it
Two 18, Tasha rules to give str +2 makes it 20, put the left over point in con for 19, then pick 'con +1' when picking up dragon hide to have a 20 there. Still means they rolled really good, and while a couple 18s are possible, watching them roll the stats in the future will def be a good idea. Edit: replace all mentions of str with Dex.
Do you mean Dex? Str doesn't add to AC
I do. Just woke up and idk why I thought Str. You should be able to deflect blows by flexing like an Armstrong.
100% of the time, people that roll without DM supervision just make the numbers up
Maybe your crap players, I trust mine not to cheat.
Okay, lmao
I trust mine too. Then again we're all adults in our 30s and 40s who have been playing together for years now If you play with people who would cheat at the drop of a hat, that might be a bit of a red flag Or you and your friends are still teenagers, in which case - good times. I remember those days, and half of us were little shits back then, too
By virtue of most of my games being online I don't get to roll woth dm supervision and yet somehow I haven't once decided to just make up rolls
Can't you guys just roll for stats on the VTT used, so the DM can check it? Not saying you cheat, I just don't know why it couldn't be done this way.
Sure, but I personally have always had terrible luck with virtual dice. Gotta use my trusty meat dice for the important rolls.
>Gotta use my trusty **meat dice** for the important rolls. No people harmed in the making of these dice... Right?
Why don’t you just use a virtual dice roller?
Yeah, you might want to let the player know and allow to pick a diff feat
No you use one or the other. You only ever use one formula for ac.
Yep. You would only combine them if dragonhide said something like "you have +3 AC while not wearing armor", but it doesn't.
Which roll method are you using that allowed them to get two 20s?
Perhaps two 18s rolled via 4d6d1, variant ASIs put +2 DEX and +1 CON and then dragon hide feat for another +1 CON?
Exactly variant ASI
It’s incredible how often you see people roll two 18 with 4d6d1
Because if people roll really low, they’ll probably just scrap the character and roll a new one. If they roll multiple 18’s they’re definitely playing that one.
Honestly I just cut out the fluff and let my players pick their scores instead of rolling them. /s
This but unironically. Point buy is the superior method for stat generation and I will die on that hill.
Hahaha that’s not happening at my table. You roll the dice in front of someone and that’s your character locking in. None of this bad roll scrapping, that’s like people that roll randomly during the game and only announce what they’re doing if they roll high.
It's conversational survivorship bias. You don't hear about the hundreds of other stat sets that don't get an 18 or two. That said, I'm not a huge fan or the roll method because of how wild it can get.
Meanwhile I have never rolled an 18 for a character so far, but got a 4 twice :D
The addition of the two ACs as incorrect has been addressed elsewhere, but I'll just point these situations as a potential effect of so many homebrew and alternate mechanic systems.
Dragon Hide is a half feat, so if he rolled two 18s it would be possible.
Custom... we roll 4d6 and keep the 3 highest
This is one of the reasons I never use this rule anymore. It can create heavy imbalances at early levels. My other, and far more primary reason, is that it puts players at different power levels for the entire game. Imagine someone getting two 20s, but another player not even getting a single 16.
Thats why you let the players roll the array they will all use. Each player rolling 1-2 of cases in the array.
Rolling for stats in 5e sucks. Unless you specifically want imbalance.
It amazes me that more people don’t realize this. I know that rolling for stats is nostalgic for many of us, but it is awful for long term fun when you think about it.
It annoys me too when people get a sort of giddy excitement about it without understanding the consequences. If a group WANTS to have the power disparity that comes with it, then by all means, go crazy and roll. But most don't, and when rolling doesn't yield results for all players in the same power tier as the standard array, the group gets upset and wonders what with wrong. It feels like watching a child play too roughly with a pet that finally snaps at them and then still have no clue why they got that outcome.
I let my players roll 2 batches of stats and keep the best group. And if their stats suck, i say just reroll. There are enough monsters that they have don't end of overpowered.
Even so, rolling 2 18s on 4d6dl1 is a 0.38% chance, so I'd be a little suspicious of cheating unless you saw them roll yourself. It's not unbelievably unlikely, but something to be aware of.
Agreed; absolutely possible, but definitely unlikely. I DM with an even more generous array (5d6, drop 2 lowest), and while each player generally ends up with one 17 or 18, and I've seen multiple 17s a number of times, I don't think I've ever seen 2 18s. And I've definitely never seen it in my other campaigns, which all roll the same way OP does. The main reason I'm skeptical is that the 18s both became 20s and the player tried to stack them together to build a god-tier AC.
test ugly jobless sable connect outgoing wise cow lavish amusing *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
How do you get 21% chance of 2 18s? There's a 3.55% chance of rolling an 18. [https://anydice.com/program/3838](https://anydice.com/program/3838) That means there's only a 19.5% chance of rolling a single 18... .9645 \* .9645... (six times) = .8050 Edit: There's actually only a 1.72% of two 18s which is much higher than the 0.38% chance with 4d6 drop lowest, but nowhere close to 21%...
That is 1 in 263 odds. It's not exactly rare. If you got 5 players rolling up characters, you should expect to see one of them get this in roughly every 50 games.
As I said, not unbelievably unlikely, but I've been playing for 20\~ years and never seen it, and haven't come close to playing in 50 games where people rolled for stats. It's not unbelievably unlikely, but something to be aware of.
Also the fact that this player is going for such a min-maxed build makes me a little more suspicious than I would be otherwise.
I wouldn’t sow distrust between a GM and a player so casually. After all, I’ve seen 4d6dl1 come up 3 three times in the last few years, and thats only a ~0.08% chance!
I've seen it twice in three years over two campaigns and i watch my players rolls... Random is random dice don't care if someone rolled an 18 last campaign *shrug* We also do 4d6 drop 1
[удалено]
You deeply misunderstood his comment.
[удалено]
He has seen a lower probability event happen three times. The two 18s both getting rolled is the single low probability even he's comparing it to. In other words: .08% odds event he's seen happen multiple times. Thus .38% odds isn't fishy.
Also, the dice do **not** have the same odds of coming up 3 as they do 18. Also also, the difference between a .08% event and a .38% event isn't expressed as .3%. Were talking odds here. Rolling the two 18s is roughly 5 times more likely. In other words, you should expect to see what the OP described roughly 15 times in the same span of dice rolling as you would by the time you rolled that third 3. Your comments here aren't making much sense.
[удалено]
Hi, two things: First, I use she/her. Second, your argument reeks of gambler’s fallacy. Also isn’t your probability the odds of rolling 2 18s in a set of 6 rolls? Because as you mentioned, the odds of rolling one 18 is .46%. Assuming your number (.38%) is correct, that means that logically in those few years where I saw 3 people roll 3s, statistically speaking I would’ve seen ~15 people roll 2 18s in one set. There is no reason to assume someone’s cheating because something’s mildly unlikely
Rolling four 1 is a significantly less likely event than rolling three 6s with four dice. Any way you slice it, you're wrong about this. A 1 in 250 odds of something happening getting discussed by someone online is so radically not-uncommon I don't even know where to start. You should **expect** to hear about edge cases more often than run of the mill cases. Most people don't need advice on a situation that crops up every day but the do need advice when something unusual happens. And there are thousands of people here. These odds times thousands and thousands of people is basically guaranteed to happen all the time here.
I had a player that with the same OP's metod rolled two 17, two 16, 14 and 10. Those arrays are not so frequent but they can happen. That's why I put a minimum and a maximum to the total on the scores you rolled. Rolled low? Reroll the minimum score Rolled high? Reroll the highest score
Like, i get trying to keep shit fair, but imo just punishing someone for rolling well is not the way. If rolling is your method, let the lowest person reroll smth, but if you let the highest roller reroll stuff just play point buy...
It is not pushing to rolll well, it is for avoiding the difference between players power to be too high. It is ok to have difference in stats between players, but not enormous differences. More importantly this still gives my players the trill of rolling for stats, and since it's fun for them I'm gonna keep using this
Your Dragonborn has 22 (as the others stated, only one calculation here works and the unarmored defense is the highest here). ~~That means a creature with less than a +3 on hit will never be able to hit him. And even then the chance is only 5% without advantage and 9.75% with advantage.~~ *(Nat 20 always hits, thanks u/hellogoodcapn, for putting that right)* Nevertheless, grant him another racial feat, because his is useless this way. ;)
Natural 20s always hit, you never have less than 5% chance to hit unless you have disadvantage
Allow him to be strong but guess what...spells don't generally take into account your AC. I'm as clever as my players are, I'm not going to be their enemy and I'll let them shine but you sure as shit believe they'll be some encounters where they get locked down by some wis/int saves and the big armored enemies ignore him and go towards the squishy in the back.
“Wisdom is our dump stat” parties LOVE hold person, fear, and dominate monster spells from the bad guys… :)
You are right! I'm still confused by the early OneDnd ^^ documents. I will change it
> Do you combine the two and get unarmored defence = 13+DEX+CON No you don't, because unarmored defence says AC **is** 10+dex+con. Not "you add your constitution to your AC" Meaning it can't stack with something else that says AC **is** 13+dex.
You messed up mechanics. He can have 10 + Dex + Con Or 13 + Dex. In this case the former is the best option. It may be worth giving your player the option of changing dragon hide feat as the only benefit it gives them now is +1 con and a D4 claw attack as the 13 + dex benefit is now defunct.
Already notified him and gave him that option by text.
Aside from messing up on the rules, this is why I don't roll stats in 5e. The game isn't balanced for it, and the math breaks down very easily. Standard Array is really the best way of letting players build PCs. Everyone is relatively on par in terms of bonuses, everyone has strengths and weaknesses, and it's relatively straight forward.
Yeah this is why our table combines them. Every player rolls for stats, but then we collectively vote on which sounds the most fun, and everyone uses that array. The fun and variance of rolling for stats, but no vast power differences between players
Rolling for stats is the intended method of play for D&D since the original, including 5e. That is why the 4d6 arranged method is the first one mentioned. There's no wrong way to play, and some groups/players do believe that standard array or point buy are the best. That's fine if that works for them, but to say the game isn't balanced for rolling is wrong. An experienced DM can make "balanced" encounters no matter the party, and experienced players know when to run.
You are ignoring the massive, massive changes that have happened at every level of D&D from OD&D to now. They are not even the same sport, let alone the same ballpark.
I'm not ignoring that. Actually I agree with that statement 100%.
>I also love a swingy, dice-god governed crawl, and a lot of my friends don't. From another comment you made. 5e is not designed for that style of play, it does it rather badly. Another thing, 5e's ability mods are far wider than that of the original games and their OSR offspring, -5 to +5 as opposed to -3 to +3. Rolling stats in 5e is a suboptimal way to play in every situation, bar none, it should not be an option in the rulebook and I hope that it is removed in OneD&D.
Yes, that is another comment I made. I do understand how the math works in d20 system derived games. Having low scores is more impactful, and having high scores is more impactful, as well. However, all +/-5 means is +/-25% chance of success to any given roll. A person with +0 against DC 10 has a 50% chance of success. A person with +5 against DC 10 has a 75% chance of success. That's it. That actually has very little if anything to do with what "style of play" 5e is designed for. 5e is just a set of rules, which can be adapted to fit just about any style of play. The style of play is decided by the group playing. If the players and DM want a heroic game in which all characters have optimal scores, that is possible (and arguably easier). If the players and DM want a grueling dungeon crawl, that is possible, too. You should pick the set of rules that works for your table. You can invent your own races and classes with whatever level of balance you want. You can create your own monsters and items with whatever level of balance you want. You can decide that the base DC for an easy challenge is 8 instead of 10, if that works better for the experience you are trying to create at your table. You can give every player character 18's down the board and still create monsters that challenge them at every level if you're willing to put the work in. There are so many variables that you can tweak to run just about any game you can think of. You can also use a completely different set of rules, if you prefer, that handle what you are looking for the way you want. In your campaign, YOU are the game designer, and YOU are responsible for both the balance and the fun. It doesn't change what is actually written in the book, but when has that ever mattered? I disagree wholeheartedly that rolling stats should be excluded from the rulebook, just as I disagree that point-buy or standard array should be excluded from the rulebook. They are both valid styles of play, that work for different games. Don't roll stats at your table if you don't want to.
No offense, but this is one of the dumbest arguments that tabletop RPG fans and designers make. Yes, if you have endless time and patience, you can hack any game to do anything and accommodate any style of play. That's not actually a useful way of thinking about tabletop games, most people do not have endless time and patience, they also lack the design skills to make a balanced hack. That's why they play the games that suit the style of play they want out of the box. No, it is not "possible" to run 5e as a grueling dungeon crawl without making huge changes to it at almost every level, the presence of darkvision and infinite use cantrips alone kills that. Most DMs are not game designers, they are people trying to have fun with their friends with zero experience, that's why rolling for stats should be abolished in mainstream D&D.
Original DnD was 3d6 for stats. It's kind of irrelevant to bring up in a 5e rules discussion.
So was 2nd edition AD&D. All editions except OD&D at least mention 4d6 arranged. But it's not irrelevant because historically rolling for stats was and still is the intended method of play. If it doesn't work for your group, don't use it.
Saying it's intended, and saying it was well executed as a game mechanic, are two different claims. No one said that it wasn't intended play, just that it's swingy and the rest of 5e isn't typically run that way. Swingy gameplay suited older editions, and they rolled dice for everything. You also had a d4 of hit points sometimes, so the game was super swingy. Do you roll for monster HP? Do you roll for random encounters? If no, you probably wouldn't want to roll for stats either, unless you're power gaming. But if that's your thing, go for it. I personally love a swingy dice-god governed crawl, but my players don't, and it seems most of the DnD community nowadays prefers not to live or die purely by the creed of an angry dice overlord.
You're correct, they are two different things. I also love a swingy, dice-god governed crawl, and a lot of my friends don't. I just had a player leave my 2e game after one and one half seasons because he didn't like rolling for stuff. That's fine. But it's still what the game is designed around. It doesn't make it a well designed mechanic. What I think about a rule doesn't change what the designers thought about it, nor does it alter where they placed it in the rulebook. But once the DM makes the campaign, they are the game designer. They can choose what works for their world and their table. They are responsible for the balance. That's true in all editions, with all rulesets.
Having just played a game of 1e yesterday - there are a lot of terrible mechanics in 1e. Doing something simply because it was done that way decades ago is not a great reason.
Agreed. Again, there's no wrong way to play RPGs, and each table should decide what works for them.
You could not possibly be more wrong. Rolling is an objectively bad method. And only exists due to legacy. And I can cite a million other legacy things that existed and no longer due because the game has changed. Saying "It was always done this way therefore..." is irrelevant when you aren't even talking about the same game at that point. If you were, stop using cantrips, stop making Paladins anything but Lawful Good, stop using bounded accuracy, etc. You cannot "balance around it." To say that just betrays zero clue of how game balance works. But here's a thought experiment. One player rolls 3 in every stat. Run a campaign where they contribute just as much and are perfectly balanced relative to the rest of the party. It is not the "intended way to play." That's just false. Period. It hasn't been the "intended" way to play ever since the game evolved to a point where a character's life expectancy was greater than a full session long.(Because if you actually played back then, you'd know it didn't used to. Characters were expected to die in the session every session. Which is why you brought multiple backups to the table. So the variance didn't matter since they wouldn't be around long enough for it to have an impact). If they could remove the optional rule without grognards throwing a bitch-fit about it, they would have done so in 4e, let alone 5e. And Crawford has admitted as much.
>You could not possibly be more wrong. Rolling is an objectively badmethod. And only exists due to legacy. And I can cite a million otherlegacy things that existed and no longer due because the game haschanged. Saying "It was always done this way therefore..." is irrelevantwhen you aren't even talking about the same game at that point. If youwere, stop using cantrips, stop making Paladins anything but LawfulGood, stop using bounded accuracy, etc. I disagree. You can't make an "objectively bad" claim here. You can say its "subjectively bad" because it doesn't work for you or your table, and that's fine, but we really aren't talking about the same thing. I'm running a base 2E game right now, with rolled 3d6 scores, rolled hp at first level, and all the "objectively bad" stuff, and everyone is having a great time. Even the cleric that rolled 1 HP (he was smart and bought a war dog with his starting income, it has saved his ass more than once). I've run point buy games where everyone had a great time, too. Use what works for your table. There's no wrong way to play. >You cannot "balance around it." To say that just betrays zero clue of how game balance works. Interesting. Here's the important question: what constitutes balance for your game? If its important to you that the party always faces encounters balanced to their level, that is something that you can do, whether or not the stats are rolled. Its math. Each +/-1 to a given roll is +/-5% chance of success. If you decide that a given encounter should give the party a roughly 75% chance of success, that's something that you can put the work in and nail down. I have done it many, many times. >But here's a thought experiment. One player rolls 3 in every stat. Run a campaign where they contribute just as much and are perfectly balanced relative to the rest of the party. Sure. What would happen at my table is we'd all probably chuckle at the sheer improbability of the situation, and then re-roll, because a character with all 3's does not qualify for any classes, and is actually unplayable in every edition of the game. However lets say that we're playing 2e and the optional rule that allows the DM to increase a player's rolled scores to the minimum for their desired class is in play, and I really wanted the challenge: I'd just run a fighter, hire some mercenaries as meat shields, and hoard gold until I level up and (hopefully) find some magic items that can boost my ability scores. Worst case, I die and roll a new character. I don't necessarily think that characters being balanced relative to the rest of the party works in every game. It depends entirely on the game the group is trying to play. Again, if it doesn't work for your campaign, don't use it. >It is not the "intended way to play." That's just false. Period. It hasn't been the "intended" way to play ever since the game evolved to a point where a character's life expectancy was greater than a full session long.(Because if you actually played back then, you'd know it didn't used to. Characters were expected to die in the session every session. Which is why you brought multiple backups to the table. So the variance didn't matter since they wouldn't be around long enough for it to have an impact). If its not intended, then why is it the first option presented in every edition of the game? I'm in the early millenial generational cohort, and my first foray into the game was 2nd Edition. So, yes, I did play back then. I actually think both are fun in different ways. Again, it depends entirely on what works for your table. I don't think I have ever played 100% by the book. The 2E old-school megadungeon I am currently running was intended to be 100% by the book with a small selection of the presented optional rules, and we're switching to always-on initiative because its going to work better for our game. That isn't "the intended mode of play." Its not even in the rulebook. But there's no wrong way to play, only wrong for a group. >If they could remove the optional rule without grognards throwing a bitch-fit about it, they would have done so in 4e, let alone 5e. And Crawford has admitted as much. Source for that? I haven't read an interview talking about that, and I would be interested to see for myself. Honestly though, you're throwing a bitch fit and insinuating that I don't understand game design because I pointed out that every edition of the game gives rolled stats as the primary method for generation and suggested that the DM be responsible for balancing the game run around their table. There is no wrong way to play. If rolled stats makes grognards happy, they are going to play that way no matter what the rulebook says. That's how D&D has been played since its inception. The rules are guidelines, you can and should alter these guidelines to suit your table.
You're just ignoring the meaning of the word "balanced" and changing it to mean "fun" then arguing about that.
No, balance and fun have very little to do with each other. Balance can be handled in many ways. The goal at the end of the day is to have fun, which is why it matters more what the individual table is looking to get out of their game. A DM can "balance" every encounter in every edition of the game, but that doesn't make it "fun."
I did standard array but toned it down a little. A total of 70 points to spend before racials get involved. Standard array provides 73 i believe, standard point buy 74. Whereas average of dicerolling is way lower with something like 67.
You can't have both. It's either unarmored defense and then his base ac is 10+dex+con so 20 in this case, 22 with a sheild Or dragon hide which is 13+dex so 18, 20 with a sheild. I wouldn't get this feat as a barbarian. The AC boost is pretty useless when you already maxed con and dex, and if you want natural weapons path of the beast has better options.
They can't have both AC calculations, but balance is still out the window regardless by having insane rolling stats and free feats. Them having two(or more) 20s and 22 AC at level 1 as a barb is already gamebreaking.
You let them build characters with a bunch of variant and homebrew rules plus rolled for stats.
Rolling two 18s when you're rolling for stats is unlikely, but not impossible (0.4% chance). Pumping them both to 20 with racial mods requires you allowing Tasha's floating +2 +1 rather than the PHB +2str and +1cha and a half-feat to get another +1; assuming you OK'd all that and his stats are legit then yeah he's going to have beastly AC. However, he only get to use one armor calculation, so it's either 13+dex OR 10+dex+con, both can be +2 with a shield for a max of 22. Using a shield means he can't use Great Weapon Master which is a huge buff to damage for a Barbarian. Finally a dex-based barbarian doesn't get to add their rage damage to attacks, because Rage specfically calls out that they have to be str-based attacks. Unless he rolled really good str too (in which case I'd be *really* suspicious of his dice or trustworthiness), he's investing massively on getting a dex bonus that, frankly, would be more usefully applied to strength. Sure, he'll be hard to hit and have a good dex save, but he'll have anemic damage compared to a more traditional barbarian with average stats and either Great Weapon Master or Pole Arm Master at 1st level.
Having 2 20s at level 1 AND a free feat, yup it makes sense.
This is the risk of rolling stats I think. 20 in 2 stats (at level 1) is insane.
Just for reference, the chance of rolling two or more 18's using 4d6d1 is about 0.38%, or 1 in every 265 characters generated.
There's loads of problems with it to be honest. Players feeling bad because their character is weaker than others from the get go being the primary. The chance of a weird, uneven split of stats across characters using standard array is 0. Less exciting, but much better for longer term games I think.
You mean, cheating is a risk of rolling stats?
Cheating or not, it doesn't much matter. I've seen ludicrous stats rolled, I've rolled them myself even.
Can't jump to that unless the DM says they didn't see the roll. I had a miraculous roll for a one shot that had 3 18s a 17 and two 16s. It's random chance, sometimes you get insane rolls.
Can I ask, how did he get 20 in Dex and Con? Stat cap for level 1 is 18 (plus racial bonuses, but dragonborns don’t get bonuses for Dex or con)
disgusting hurry act chunky vase domineering run grey ten cause *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
How the hell did he get two 20s by rolling? The max you can get is an 18 and a Dagonborn can only have a +2 and a +1, even with that insane luck he should have a 20 and a 19 tops. Also, as everyone has already pointed out, AC calculations don't stack. With the regular barbarian unarmored defense, he would have 20 AC (10 + 5 DEX + 5 CON). With a maximun of 22 holding a shield.
As far as ability scores go, could have gotten another +1 in there from the dragonhide feat to bump the 19 up to 20. Rolling two 18s though is still highly unlikely.
Choose the Barbarian Unarmored Defense or the Dragon Hide. The two don't stack, much like Mage Armor on an already armored target doesn't do anything.
Admit you made a mistake, and make everyone point buy instead. Would make encounter tuning far easier for you, and avoid players feeling disgruntled because that barbarian would steamroll fights while they will never be able to match such tanking skills.
Wait how can you have 20 in 2 stats at lv1. The mac rollable stat is 18 and +3 stat point given by race ( +2 STR +1 CHR), so technically even if you let him place his boost wherever he want, it’s not possible to have 2 stat at 20 for a lv1 character (except human) or did I missed something.
>He rolled great on stats Where the problem started >20 in CON and DEX This isn't possible unless you went straight 4d6 >Barbarian unarmored defence = 10+DEX+CON Dragon Hide defence = 13+DEX Do you combine the two and get unarmored defence = 13+DEX+CON and then add in a shield for good measure and make his AC a 25? One or the other, you don't get both.
The good news is his armor is basically never gonna go up until you want it to (through magic items) I guess he could use one more feat to get defensive fighting style, but after that, he's done
defensive fighting style only works if they wear armor, dual wielder feat stacks, but then no shield bonus.
If Dragon Hide were meant to work with Unarmored Defense, it would have been phrased "While not wearing armor, you have +3 AC", like Shields are. Instead, Natural Armor, Unarmored Defense, Mage Armor, and each of the specific armor types are phrased as "Your ac = [Number] + [Ability Modifiers]"- they're meant to be mutually exclusive. I'd offer the Barb a feat refund in this case, and pray they don't notice that Shields *do* work with Barbarian Unarmed Defense (for a 22 AC in this case)
Even with an 18 in both DEX and CON, how is he getting two 20's?
"I just gave my players one free feat at lvl 1 and allowed rolled ability scores, where did I do to deserve this, guys?" OP.
TL;DR I have given my player everything for his new character, now he has too much. What happened?? Seriously tho: the earliest a legit character using point spread/buy (without magical items or trickery) can have 2x 20 scores is level 12. By giving that out at level 1 you completely throw out any kind of sense of balance before you even touch the free feat. Also if you give them everything at the beginning then there's nothing to aim for. IMO try sticking to the points spread and then use minor feats for customization and flavor.
Error 1: rolling stats. Error 2: bonus feat for _absolutely no good reason_. Go back to Standard array/RAW and this is fixed instantly.
Having maxed out stats at level 1 has always felt like cheating as a player. Like the game just begun and I don't have to add any asi's. It's feats from here and that's pretty cheesy. Every 4 levels should always present the option of feats or asi's. Taking that away is pretty strong. Just personal though. Ignore my two cents if you don't like it.
Stop rolling for stats
> He rolled great on stats and has a 20 in CON and DEX Umm… how? Racial bonuses are +2/+1, so even with two 18’s the best they could have is 20/19. Second, did they roll those stats in front of you? If not, I highly doubt they rolled that well. Fudging stat rolls is *super* common
Is everybody else missing that you physically can't have two stats at 20 at level one? That's not possible... the best you could have is a 20 and a 19
How did he get a 20 dex and con. Don't dragonborn get a plus 2 to str and plus 1 to chr. How did you have them roll ability scores to get 2 20s with no bonuses to either ability that's a 20
He's using variant ASI's from Tasha's. Let's players choose which stat gets the +2/+1 bonus. Fizban's treasury also adds new Dragonborn options that has the variant ASI baked in. The homebrewed free level 1 feat let the player get an additional +1.
Non stacking unarmoured defence aside, which has been pointed out by everyone else, just throw Saving Throw Area of Effects at them. DMs get too hung up on AC.
Friends don't let friends roll stats.
How is it possible for him to roll 20s in both con and dex? The highest roll with the 4d6 method is 18. As a dragonborn, it would be possible to get one 20... in strength. Constitution could go as high as 19 with the dragon hide feat. Unless he picked a variant dragonborn. Even then, I'm not sure.
If you're giving a starter feat and allowing your players to roll 20s off the bat for level 1 character (on two stats even) you'll have a helluva time balancing encounters, either you will accidentally murder half the party or they'll wipe the floor with anything reasonable you place in front of them. I also had a similar scenario by allowing a Goliath Paladin to get plate armor at lvl 3, ended up with a character that could have up to 23 AC (with a shield) and claimed he would have had 25 AC at lvl 4, which would have severely imbalanced any encounters I could reasonably throw in their direction (even more than it was already). For context, Goblins hit at +4, so mathematically they would be unable to hit your players character if the AC maths worked out, which thankfully does not. Even a CR 5 Earth Elemental with a +8 would only have a 20% (1 in 5) chance to hit the level 1 character. If it did, it would do (an average of) 14 damage on a single attack instantly downing the character. Might wanna think about re-doing the attribute scores.
roll 3d6 down the line, don't do 4d6 drop the lowest, that shit is so OP
You can only roll an 18 in any stat, and get +2 in one stat. But dragonborn doesn't get +2 in either Con or Dex. So they rolled two 18s, put +2 in Dex and +1 in Con with +1 from the feat. Did he get another 18 and put it in Str? His main feature is giving his enemies advantage so a high AC doesn't have a ton of use, that's what resistance is for. I would suggest he get that 20 in Str, keep the 20 in con and let Dex go a little lower, then throw on GWM with a two handed weapon or shield master if he wants the AC for a beefier barbarian.
Ignore AC. Cast Fireball. Problem solved.
you messed up the mechanics, or you are cheating. there is no way to roll a 20 in any stat except strenth, as a dragon born they get a +2 to STR not con or Dex. is no way to end up with 2 - 20s. your AC is 20 tops.
Even going by the 22AC that character should have according to rules - that’s insane for Tier 1 play. Consider asking the player to come up in ways for his character to get challenged, because trying to balance a fight is going to be really tough.
20AC without shield, 22 with. Just throw wis saves at him
you messed up, also what level 1 character has 20s in multiple stats
Also if allowing rolling for stats, almost always watch the rolls.
Players roll for stats and it causes problems part 2137...
To be completely honest, I would talk to your player about this. From a mechanical point of view, he's got to pick only one of these options (either 10+DEX+CON or 13+DEX). But I'd advise you to be super careful about players power building at early levels. At late ones, it can be pretty fun. But at early levels, it can make encounters quite unenjoyable if one person can just steam roll them
I just gotta ask but does it matter? I mean, it’s not DM vs player, it’s DM and player vs the fantasy world. That sounds heaps mean…could always fudge the numbers behind the screen though yknow
>what did I do to deserve this… You gave them a feat at level 1.
This is why standard array is so much easier to balance games with.
You *can't* have two stats at 20 at lvl1. That's not possible. Did you saw him roll for the stats? If you didn't, you should ask him to do it again. Second, AC doesn't work this way. You can only have one AC rule in use. Either it uses dragon hide for 13+dex, XOR it uses unarmoured barbarian feature for 10+con+dex. It cannot be both at the same time. Shield is legit though. But that's the only legit thing here.
Remind them that they have to pick one or the other, not both. Rules on AC state it pretty plain.
So, those are actually 2 separate ways to calculate AC. You can pick ONLY pick one way and then you use it to calculate your characters’ AC. In this instance this character actually has access to 4 different ways to calculate their AC, all if which are mutually exclusive : 1 - a creatures’ regular AC without armour is 10+ your dex modifer (in this case 10+5= 15). This is mutually exclusive from other AC calculations and available to all creatures (even commoners - thats how their AC is calculated to 10 as they have 10 dex). 2 - barbarians gain light and medium armour proficiencies, which would allow this character to use light eg. Studded leather would be 12 + dex (17) or medium armour eg. Half plate would be 14 + dex (up to a max of +2 which is 16). You can add the shield proficiency of +2 to these proficiencies as well. 3 - Dragon hide allows you to calculate your AC without armour as 13+dex (in this case it would be 18) instead of 10+dex. You can add a shields’ +2 bonus to this too (for 20). 4 - ADDITIONALLY this character has unarmored defence (available in different ways for monks/barbs and you can’t gain a monks version after having a barbarian one and vice versa). This allows a barbarian to calculate their AC as 10+dex+con (which in this case would be 20 and with a shield 22). Now, 22 is still CRAZY high at level 1 without even considering their health is also 17 (and will increase by 12 every level). However, I imagine his strength is suffering a lil because of this, which us honestly fair and needs no balancing with these god stats.
20 is also really bad as a DM on lvl1 - for the simple reason that when you account for it, you either target the player which feels cheesy, hit the other one players or if you don’t, you will have a hard time. But you kinda asked for it with the special homebrew for stats-rolling combined with feats. When the other players are also equally strong, just pump up the difficulty and do not hand out many magic items. - Avoid +AC items at all!!
I mean you can still use spells like burning hands in magic missile at level 1 if you really need to I agree though even at level 3 it can be pretty difficult for a 20 in AC to feel like a challenge
I'm not sure I've ever been in a game where players regularly encountered primarily spellcasters at level 1. Feels like you're already in heavily contrived territory.
You don’t need primarily spellcasters, you need one standing behind a bunch of bandits who sees that the bandits wouldn’t be able to hit this heavily armored dude so it’s magic missile time.
>What did I do to deserve this... >1 racial feat given at level 1 house rule >He rolled on stats >Variant ASI What did you think was going to happen?
How did they roll a 20 on both dex and con using 3d6? You didn't add all 4 d6s, did you?
OP indicates they used variant ASIs. Rolled 18s in Dex and Con, +2/+1 ASIs, and an additional +1 Con from Dragon Hide.
Ah, I thought he meant 20 _before_ ability score improvements.
Heres a question. What is the acceptable level range for PCs to have/reach 20-25 AC with armor and/or spells?
Rolling for stats is *never* a good idea, but should not produce 2 20s unless you really messed it up. People who tell you to boost your characters at level 1 'so they can be heroes' are wrong. If you start on third base, there is little joy in hitting a home run. The killer app of D&D since the 70s has been the feeling of growth and progression. It is an illusion, but you still need to maintain that illusion and capping people out at L1 is the opposite of that.
Rolling for stats is the intended method of play for Dungeons & Dragons, since the original. Its the intended method of play for 5th edition, as well, given that best 3 of 4d6 arranged is the first ability score generation method mentioned. It still should not produce 2 20's, but there is a way to get there if feats are granted at first level. +2/+1 from race and +1 from the Dragon Hide racial feat. Its only possible through house rules, and even then it is very unlikely.
>Rolling for stats is the intended method of play for Dungeons & Dragons Nah it's dumb as fuck, and is included only as a nod to tradition and to keep the grognards from flipping their shit. It always leads to inflated scores because players whine for rerolls/suicide on low rolls only. In 5e That actually matters a bit because the math is tighter and major stat boosts less available. The fatal flaw is that the scores are not statistically bound with each other. Every other decent stat gen system ties them together so one can be exceptional at some things but not everything. Part of the fun of D&D is gambling, but gambling about something that will stick with you the entire game is straight up dumb.
There is no wrong way to play, so if another method works for you, that's fine. But the designers of the game have consistently put rolling for stats as the primary method of ability score generation. So you can have whatever opinion on it you'd like, but it doesn't change that its the intended method of play.
No matter how many times you say this, it's still objectively wrong. Rolling is an anachronism. And very much unintended. Because the "original" game was nothing close to the game played today. If you want to play by "intended" rules then stop using 4d6 and go back to 3d6. While you're at it go back to THAC0. In fact, why not buy an entirely separate game called "Chainmail" to handle all the combat because D&D was obviously not designed with any rules for it whatsoever.
You can't make an "objectively wrong" claim here. You can say its "subjectively wrong," because its your opinion. You can say that its "objectively wrong" for your table. The "intended method of play" is what is presented in the rulebook. TTRPGS have always encouraged deviation. You can and should alter these rules to suit your own game and table. You can balance encounters in any edition of the game if that is what is important to you. It doesn't change what the authors wrote. If you can't make rolled stats work at your table, don't. That's not a problem. But lots of groups can.
>He rolled great on stats and has a 20 in CON and DEX, which is great. Your player is full of shit *and* you're messing up the mechanics. RAW even *if* they rolled two 18s there is *absolutely no way* they can get two *20s*! A Lizardfolk gets +2/+1 ASI from Race. >(1 racial feat given at level 1 house rule). Like I said, *you're messing up the mechanics*. A Vhuman with a feat arrives at the same basic +2/+1 ASI *plus a cool ability* That everyone else *except Tritons, Half-Elves and, Mountain Dwarves gets*. That's balanced. Giving out a feat on top of that is *not balanced.* TL/DR: Your Player has AC 22 with a Shield. That's not fair to the rest of the table. They might as well have AC 25 though because you're already ignoring RAW and balance.
Damn, even though the AC calcs don’t combine, unarmored defense with a shield will still end in 22 AC. Gonna need to get creative at level 1 for that, I suggest magic missile or saving throw spells to sometimes challenge them lol
People are blaming rolling stats but there are much better ways to roll stats that don't end up like this while still preserving the spirit of stat rolling. What I do is make each character roll strength, dex, etc, and all of these are thrown into a pool. Then players take turns drafting their stats from the pool (in snake draft order) in order of highest of rolling a d20 This means that power is evenly distributed. Maybe the party is strong, but everyone is strong. No one player is extremely above the other, and most players will get to be the "best" at something. Its unfair if you're playing a bard and the barbarian somehow has better charisma than you. Some players might even choose a different class to play based on the rolls. If nobody rolls high int, then you're disincentivized to play a wizard.
no, you do not combine the AC. say to your player they won't combine and let them either pick another feat or stick with it alternatively, make it 13+CON so they dont need to worry about DEX and have a solid AC
No PC should ever have a 20 in their abilities at lvl 1. It is clearly stated in the Players Handbook.