D&D 5E Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats

[Oofta]

Not in the context of a debate, of course, but in the realm of propaganda...

That the 3d6 bell curve still represents the general population? There are some facts consistent with it. Quite apart from it being the case in the classic game, and it never being replaced by anything else.
For instance the structure of stat bonuses, with 0 at the 3d6 average of 10-11.

Each of those things is relevant. And, again, focusing on the 'only' is missing the point. Law & Chaos are back as an independent axis in 5e. The Paladin in the SRD is the LG Paladin.

The editions of the fad years, the red box and 1e AD&D, though, are probably most relevant, though.

There may well be, in that metaphorical sense.

Where it made sense for their goals, which included fast combat and classic feel - and really, a number of other things that all boiled down to classic feel, as well...
Except it did, it just remains an option, rather than a default.

TLDR version: I really want it to be true, therefore it is.

If you can point out anywhere in any 5E book where it states that you should roll 3d6 for ability scores for the general population* I will concede the point. Until then, statements like "one of the many things that has not changed is the 3d6 bell curve model of the general population." is simply not true.

If you want to use it for your campaign, feel free. It's not a default assumption in 5E.

[EDIT] *Obviously you can roll for ability scores for NPCs, if you choose to roll for ability scores. To say that is a "default" is like saying that the default car is a two door hatchback with a V8 engine, because you can buy a car (a Corvette) with that option.

 

[Satyrn]

True, but it is a much, much better model than point-buy!

Is it a model that you use? Do you have lots of NPCs with ability scores hovering between 3 and 6? Do you describe frail characters, absolute dollards, klutzes and fools in the proportion that rolled stats provide?

 

[Maxperson]

Is there anything other than your statement to back this up? Repeatedly stating something as fact does not make it so.

Page 89 of the DMG gives guidelines:

ABILITIES
You don't need to roll ability scores for the NPC, but note abilities that are above or below average - great strength or monumental stupidity, for example - and use them to inform the NPC's qualities.​

Which directly contradicts what you are saying. The assumption is no hard numbers, no rolling 3d6 nor any other generation method for ability scores for NPCs. You can of course create a character for the NPC which may mean generating their ability scores using your favored method (or using a generic NPC as a starting point) as stated on page 92 of the DMG.

I don't care what previous editions said or did not say, they are no more relevant to the current edition than the tradition of paladins only being lawful good or there only being alignments of Law and Chaos. If you want to use rules from previous editions, great. But there is no "holy text", there were no sacred stone tablets inscribed with the 15 10 commandments of The Great Gygax.

They pulled certain aspects of previous editions into the current edition where it made sense. Rolling for ability scores for every NPC didn't make the cut.

You are completely misreading that section. Saying something is not necessary is not only not an assumption that it is not done, but it is a stronger assumption to assume that it is done. I personally love tacos. I eat them all the time. Now, were I to tell that it wasn't necessary for me to eat tacos, that would be true. If you then assumed that it meant that I don't eat tacos, you would be wrong.

When something is not done, it is stated that it is not done. If stats for NPCs were not rolled as an assumption, it would have most likely have been stated as something similar to, "Stats are generally not rolled for NPCs, but you can if you want to."

 

[Maxperson]

TLDR version: I really want it to be true, therefore it is.

If you can point out anywhere in any 5E book where it states that you should roll 3d6 for ability scores for the general population* I will concede the point. Until then, statements like "one of the many things that has not changed is the 3d6 bell curve model of the general population." is simply not true.

If you want to use it for your campaign, feel free. It's not a default assumption in 5E.

[EDIT] *Obviously you can roll for ability scores for NPCs, if you choose to roll for ability scores. To say that is a "default" is like saying that the default car is a two door hatchback with a V8 engine, because you can buy a car (a Corvette) with that option.

The rules don't read, "You can roll for ability scores for NPCs, but it isn't the default.", it reads, "It is not necessary to roll for ability scores for NPCs.". The second language implies that rolling is the default, but you don't have to do it. You are switching it around.

 

[Oofta]

The rules don't read, "You can roll for ability scores for NPCs, but it isn't the default.", it reads, "It is not necessary to roll for ability scores for NPCs.". The second language implies that rolling is the default, but you don't have to do it. You are switching it around.

Nowhere does it state nor imply that you roll for ability scores for NPCs. If you really want to you can generate ability scores for unique NPCs using the same method you use for generating characters. In my campaign that would mean I would use point buy.

I can't think of anything else to add.

From now on my reply is: Want to have randomized ability scores? Go for it. I prefer point buy. In addition I don't think rolling a few 6 sided dice is a good method for modeling the ability scores of the general population nor is such a method stated as the default in 5E.

 

[Tony Vargas]

statements like "one of the many things that has not changed is the 3d6 bell curve model of the general population." is simply not true.

So,what replaced it, then?

*Obviously you can roll for ability scores for NPCs, if you choose to roll for ability scores. To say that is a "default" .

The default in 5e is that commoners have straight 10s, more capable npcs are better, and the DM makes up other npcs as he sees fit, noting how they deviate from that norm - a norm that's consistent with the average of 3d6.

 

[Oofta]

So,what replaced it, then?

I've already quoted the pages in the DMG. Pages 89-92. There is no replacement, it's not needed.

The default in 5e is that commoners have straight 10s, more capable npcs are better, and the DM makes up other npcs as he sees fit, noting how they deviate from that norm - a norm that's consistent with the average of 3d6.

So? It's also consistent with the average of a D20. Or the number of toes a healthy adult normally has. It tells you nothing about the distribution of ability scores.

In any case: Want to have randomized ability scores? Go for it. I prefer point buy. In addition I don't think rolling a few 6 sided dice is a good method for modeling the ability scores of the general population nor is such a method stated as the default in 5E.

 

[Tony Vargas]

True, but it is a much, much better model than point-buy!

3d6 may not be a great model of variation in a human population, but it was used as such, in at least some sense, on 1e. Point-buy was never used that way, AFAIK, like 4d6, standard array, and all the 1e DMG methods, it was for generating PCs which were meant to be exceptional.

So the comparison is largely moot, beyond faintly implying that 3d6 would be bad for generating PCs...

When something is not done, it is stated that it is not done.

That'd be pretty impractical, the rules would end up reading like The Book of Armaments...

...actually that'd be kinda hilarious.

So? It's also consistent with the average of a D20. Or the number of toes a healthy adult normally...

Neither of which have ever been used that way.

In any case: Want to have randomized ability scores? Go for it. I prefer point buy.

As a player, that's my preference, too.
If I'm consciously calling back the classic game, though, I'll go with random, for the disadvantages as much as for the positives, since both contribute to that feel.

In addition I don't think rolling a few 6 sided dice is a good method for modeling the ability scores of the general population nor is such a method stated as the default in 5E.

Sure. Even when it was presented as such back in 1e it was more a background or foundation - it was not a game of sociology statistics.

 

[Hussar]

He qualified it as "All NPCs" so that he could disingenuously be right. He knows very well that NPCs were statted out all over the place.

How is "3d6 is used for the general population" not applying to all NPC's? Are NPC's not the general population?

Oh, and I agree that NPC's, particularly "named" NPC's who are expected to have more significant interactions with the PC's, such as henchmen, are more likely to be given stats. The fact of the matter though is that the overwhelming majority of NPC's in those modules DON'T have stats and are certainly not generated on a 3d6 model.

 

[Lanefan]

If you can point out anywhere in any 5E book where it states that you should roll 3d6 for ability scores for the general population* I will concede the point. Until then, statements like "one of the many things that has not changed is the 3d6 bell curve model of the general population." is simply not true.

Except the point-buy vs. rolling discussion is germaine to all editions, not just 5e; and even though it's in a 5e-based forum doesn't mean all of us will automatically look at it from a 5e-only perspective. I sure don't.

And [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] is right in one thing: the 3d6 bell curve, for all its flaws ( [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is spot on when he points out that 3d6 gives way too many extreme results to base a general population on) was the stated default for general population creation in 1e and, as it has not really been replaced or amended since, remains the default...well...by default.

The one thing that has changed is bonuses and how they work. In 0-1-2e there was little to no appreciable difference between an 8 and a 13 other than one's roll-under odds and - for strength - carrying capacity. The large center of the bell curve was all kinda mushed together into a big pool of 'ordinary'; and that was just fine. 3e brought in linear bonuses (bad) but did not change the 3-18 bell curve standard (bad becomes worse), meaning that all those 8-9 and 12-13 stats that previously fell under 'ordinary' now fell under 'bonus/penalty-granting'...which means 'exceptional'. 4-5e have followed on with this same poor model.

Something else that only just occurred to me while typing this: if 5e wants all commoner stats to be 10 then they're doing commoners a slight (but over a whole population, quite noticeable) disservice, in that the average of 3d6 is in fact 10.5 and commoners should thus have as many 11s as 10s. Given that the difference in average between array (12.0) and 4d6 rolling (12.24) generates so much complaint yet is less than half the difference between 10.0 and 10.5, I think it's time for the commoners and peasants to stand up and be heard!

Lan-"and when I'm in the same post saying both Hussar and Tony V are right, that alone should tell you something's in the air"-efan