D&D 5E Array v 4d6: Punishment? Or overlooked data

[dd.stevenson]

I agree that the maths involves a degree of approximation, but I don't think it's hopeless.

Whereas I think it very well might be. Stats are a permanent advantage that will last over the course of the campaign; but a level advantage is a huge short term advantage that will all but evaporate as the xp to level up increases. (Depending on how your group handles leveling and xp distribution, of course.)

My point being, the only things stat increases and level increases have in common is that they are both objective increases in character power, and they accomplish this partially by increasing some of the same numbers. I don't think that's sufficient grounds to claim that rolling for one makes as much sense as rolling for the other. Or else, if it is sufficient grounds, then I suppose we're free to claim that rolling for any quantifiable element of the game makes as much sense as rolling for any other quantifiable element. Right?

 

[Hussar]

Stat array has 0 risk. By comparison everything is much riskier than point buy.

Even with 35 point buy, the restriction of "no 16s" means someone will want to roll. The gambling addicts among us who think the risk is worth the payoff of starting with a 20 in a stat at level 1.

My issue is with the "much" part. It's really not that much riskier.

You are wrong. We've already done the math that choosing a random option for rolling is not "twice as likely to provide a superior result." That's just flat out wrong. You're likely to get a higher result just like you're likely to get a lower result.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...hment-Or-overlooked-data/page13#ixzz3GpUZOwQP

Umm, your own math shows that you have twice the chance of getting equal or higher stats when rolling than getting lower. So, no, there aren't equal chances. If there were equal chances, I'd shut up and go away, because you'd be right, it would be perfectly fair. But, it's not. The rolled array is higher, and sometimes much higher more times than it's lower and the very lower rolled arrays are removed from the equation. So, no, I'm not wrong.

Like I said, try the experiment. Instead of 25 Point Buy or Die Roll, try 35 Point Buy or Die roll, after all, you have pretty much even odds of getting a 35 point buy character with 4d6 drop one. That's fair. Actually, isn't the average for 4d6 drop 1 32 point buy? So, peg the guarantee there. 32 point buy or die roll. Watch what happens. Yeah, you might get that one guy who wants to gamble, but, dollars to donuts, you're only going to have one.

 

[billd91]

That is a very strong argument against rolling. Because the variance within the party adds to the DMs work, if the DM cares to help all the players at the table have fun.

Not really. The biggest variance at the table, the one that takes the most effort for a GM to work with, isn't touched by using point-buy or standard array methods - and that's the differences between players. The differences between rolled stats isn't even a speed bump by comparison.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

My players won't do point buy, never have. Neither do I. Even when I offered to let them they roll when we started 3e they went for the rolls. So we just do take the stats you roll and make a character. The only rule is that if your total stat mods are less than +1 you can re roll in our old 1e retroclone game and I think 3e had something similar. Not sure what 5e's rule is but we will be doing 4d6 drop the lowest and assign as you will. Nobody seems to complain or cry about Jimmy having a higher stat array. But we tend to not have anything in mind for a PC until we see our stat array, then go from there. Die rolling and player choices tend to be more relevant to character survival than initial stat array IME. I find the talk of dollars to donuts guarantees of rolling stats leading to table problems to be silly. Maybe with your group but it hasn't been my experience. YMMV and all that of course.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Sacrosanct, please meet Sacrosanct.



I never said that fun made it not fair, only unimportant. In response, you put words into my mouth, then made a direct personal attack.

Game. Set. Match.

Um...if I said something like "Besides, I bet a lot of folks who like point buy are just a bunch of whiners who throw fits any time someone rolls better than them" you'd have a fair equivalency there to what you did. But I didn't. You seemed to be making the argument that it wasn't fair unless you were having fun (the whole spin off from why you disagreed with my fairness statement to begin with). And I still say that if that's your position, then it's an immaturity problem. Me saying that in no way makes it a critical basis of my argument, like what you did in your sweeping generalization.

If you're playing a game, try again.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Umm, your own math shows that you have twice the chance of getting equal or higher stats when rolling than getting lower. So, no, there aren't equal chances. If there were equal chances, I'd shut up and go away, because you'd be right, it would be perfectly fair. But, it's not. The rolled array is higher, and sometimes much higher more times than it's lower and the very lower rolled arrays are removed from the equation. So, no, I'm not wrong.
.

I don't think you understand what "equal chance" means. For one, there is no chance in point buy or array. Secondly, you seem to keep ignoring that with random rolling, you can also roll below what is possible compared to point buy or array, just like rolling above. And thirdly, you seem to hinge your argument on people throwing away PCs they rolled low on. Which I would have to point out, yet again, that's a person problem and not a rule problem.

Seriously folks, you guys really need to work harder on being able to separate a process with the people doing the process. The merits or validity of a process should not be criticized because you happened to have played with immature people.

 

[Sunseeker]

I'm fairly generous with my stat rolling. I prefer powerful players because I prefer to build deadly encounters.
I have a custom array: 18, 16, 14, 14, 12, 10.
I let players roll two sets of 7 4d6, drop lowest die and score, reroll 1's or add that 1 to your total score and take the best of the two rolls. Potential for a 19? Sure, but also some cushion from suck-tasticity. I generally find people are more interested in playing a character that isn't going to drop dead in the first 5 minutes of play.

I do ask my players to generate their stats at the table. They're welcome to write up all the other stuff at home, but I want to see those dice a-rolling. If for some reason they cannot do this, I just ask to see their sheet and if I feel their scores are unreasonable, I'll make them re-roll, but given how I let people roll to begin with, you gotta be sporting some kick-butt scores to really get my attention (say, 2 19s, 3 18s and 1 17).

I don't have a problem with rolling stats, as long as there is some flexibility to it. I go to a game and I get told that it's 3d6, rolled in order and if you don't like it you have to toss the whole character? I'll probably walk.

 

[pemerton]

If every player is given the same opportunity and choices, that is fair, but the very definition of it.

Sorry, but your analogy only works if one player was only allowed to use the Basic rules while everyone else had the full rules. I.e., creating an inequity from the entry point of the scenario, like your parking example. At the game table, everyone is afforded exactly the same material, opportunity, and choices.

This simply isn't true as a universal generalisation about playing D&D.

If the game was called "Let's generate Traveller characters and compare them to one another", then you would be correct. Everyone turns up with the same material, opportunity and choices: copies of the little black books, some d6s, pencils and paper.

But if the game that a group of people are playing is "Let's generate PCs, then play them through a 100-session campaign, in which the outcomes over the course of the campaign will depend heavily upon action resolution, and action resolution will in turn depend heavily upon stat modifiers", then it is not true that rolling for stats gives everyone the same material, opportunity and choices. Some get high stats, others low stats, which - relative to the game they are playing - is unequal material, unequal opportunities and unequal choices.

You might wish that everyone was playing D&D just like you do, but they're not. Hence what might be fair for the game you're playing may not be fair for the (different) game that they're playing.

Now in the real world, when person A conceives of the "game" of life one way, and person B conceives of it a different way, political conflict is the typical result. Happily, in the RPGing world there is no need for conflict, because you can play the game you like - in which stat rolling is fair - and I can play the game I like - in which stat rolling would not be fair. Given that you and I live in different countries separated by the Pacific Ocean, the odds of us ever having to play together are slim. So I don't see why it bothers you so much that I - and others with whom you'll probably never have to play either - play D&D differently from you, with resulting different conceptions of what fairness requires.

The merits or validity of a process should not be criticized because you happened to have played with immature people.

Seriously?

Wanting to play a game in which PCs have equal chances of impacting the fiction, where that equality is not expressed in terms of a one-off gamble but is an equality that endures over the course of the game, in virtue of roughly comparable capabilities in respect of action resolution, is not immature. Maybe you don't like that style of play, but so what? "Wanting to play the same game as Sacrosanct" is not any sort of necessary condition of maturity.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

I'm fairly generous with my stat rolling. I prefer powerful players because I prefer to build deadly encounters.
I have a custom array: 18, 16, 14, 14, 12, 10.
I let players roll two sets of 7 4d6, drop lowest die and score, reroll 1's or add that 1 to your total score and take the best of the two rolls. Potential for a 19? Sure, but also some cushion from suck-tasticity. I generally find people are more interested in playing a character that isn't going to drop dead in the first 5 minutes of play.

My friend who GMed for us in 3.5 did something similar. 4d6 re-roll 1s once and drop the lowest die. Roll seven times and drop the lowest. Three 1s counted as an 18 and four 1s counted as a 19. If you didn't like your rolls you could make roll another batch of stats until you were satisfied but the system for generating them made robust characters, so usually people took their first array.

The GM had a similar opinion as you. He wanted powerful PCs, so rigged the stat generation well in our favor.

 

[Sacrosanct]

But if the game that a group of people are playing is "Let's generate PCs, then play them through a 100-session campaign, in which the outcomes over the course of the campaign will depend heavily upon action resolution, and action resolution will in turn depend heavily upon stat modifiers", then it is not true that rolling for stats gives everyone the same material, opportunity and choices. Some get high stats, others low stats, which - relative to the game they are playing - is unequal material, unequal opportunities and unequal choices.

Let's try to break this down, because this is your first core mistake right here. "Depend heavily upon stat modifiers."

Looking at the mechanics of D&D we can see the following:

To Hit = d20+proficiency+stat mod+weapon mod vs. AC value in most cases. If you have one PC with a 15 in a stat and another who rolled a 16, all else being equal for say a 1st level PC against an AC opponent, you'd have:

d20+2+2 vs AC 15. On a 1-10 he misses, on an 11-20 is a hit
d20+2+3 vs AC 15. On a 1-9 he misses, on a 10-20 is a hit

Seems to me that the odds on hitting the target do not "depend heavily" on the stat difference, as it's just a very minor increase in the chance to hit. And that's even assuming that the person who rolls random stats will always have higher stats than the point buy or array, and that's already been demonstrated to not be true.

I'm sorry, but if you (general you) are going to rely on hyperbole (I'm being punished, it's not fair, it heavily depends on) that isn't even the proper way to use these words and phrases, I'm going to have a hard time buying into your argument.

Wanting to play a game in which PCs have equal chances of impacting the fiction, where that equality is not expressed in terms of a one-off gamble but is an equality that endures over the course of the game, in virtue of roughly comparable capabilities in respect of action resolution, is not immature. Maybe you don't like that style of play, but so what? "Wanting to play the same game as Sacrosanct" is not any sort of necessary condition of maturity.

Firstly, this isn't about playing the way I want to play. You can put that strawman to bed right now. Secondly, let's just clarify your statement because I clearly want to make sure I'm not misinterpreting. This sentence above seems to imply that a player who demands that every PC at the table has the exact same score for each of the abilities as every other PC at the table, that is not an immature behavior, and isn't fair*. After all, every PC makes every type of stat roll at some point in the game, whether it be an attack roll, a saving throw, or an ability check. You're talking about how an ability modifier "endures over the course of a game", and how every PC should have the same equality in that measurement. That means, and is dependent on, every PC having the same ability modifier (equal chance) for every one of their stats since every stat is used "over the course of the game."

Otherwise, where do you draw the line? Every PC should have the same attack roll modifier, but not saving throw modifier? Every PC should have the same attack and saving throw modifiers, but not skill checks?

Basically, in order for your argument to have any sort of weight, you have to get rid of random rolling altogether in the game, and every PC would have to have the exact same stats. That's the required criteria needed in order to meet your conditions above, since the success of a to hit roll is a lot more heavily dependent on a random d20 roll than an ability modifier, and the only way to achieve "equity over the course of the game" is to eliminate randomness and make everyone the same.

And I'm going to head off one of your counter arguments right now. I imagine a typical response you (or someone else) might have to this is, "No, not every stat should be the exact same, but the pool of stat bonuses should be, and the players can choose where to put them." yes, that's true. But the players also choose whether to use array, point buy, or random rolls. If everyone was given the same choices, complaining about a player who chose to roll and got a higher stat as unfair is literally the same thing as complaining about a player who chose to put his +2 modifier in dexterity when you chose to put a +0 modifier there (both using the same arrays) when you both have to make a dex saving throw.

*my argument was that saying that if you think it's not fair to you because another player has a higher stat when everyone was given the same opportunity choices, is immature behavior, and you're clearly disagreeing with that