D&D 5E Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats

[Lanefan]

Rolling Rules !

2d6+3, for normal people

2d6+3. Range 5-15, average 10.0

3d6. Range 3-18, average 10.5

3d6 and replace one die with a 4, for heroic adventurers

3d6 replace lowest with a 4. Range 6-16 skewed slightly high, average a bit over 11 I think

4d6 default method. Range 3-18 skewed high, average 12.24

This system gives lower averages than the standard methods for each of commoners and adventurers - great if you prefer lower stats overall, but be warned if you don't.

Lanefan

 

[Yardiff]

7d3dl1

 

[Yardiff]

PHB pg 13 says, 'You generate your characters 6 ability scores randomly. Roll 4d6 take the 3 highest, do this for all 6 stats. If your a gimp and feel that taking 5 min to roll stats is way to long you can use this stat array 15, 14, 13, 12 , 10, 8.'

Of course thats just a paraphase of the wording.

 

[Hussar]

[MENTION=6799649]Arial Black[/MENTION] - the problem I have with your argument is that you are insisting on following the advice laid out in 1e but, then ignoring the context of that advice. In 1e, "normal" stats (as in no penalty or bonus) run from 7-14. Thus, a 3d6 distribution will result in about 90% (someone else can do the exact math) of the population having identical stats from a modifier point of view.

There really is no real difference between an 8 Str and a 14 Str. At least, not enough difference to be noticeable.

However, in 5e, the bands are MUCH smaller. The only range that qualifies as "normal" (again, as in no bonuses or penalties) is 10-11. A 3d6 model results in about 40% of the population falling outside that normal band, and, since stats are hard capped at 20, a significant portion of the population is swimming in the very deepest end of the pool.

You cannot apply one model to another system without taking into account the differences between the systems.

 

[Yardiff]

10-11 is 'average' over all bonus of +0
8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 is 'normal' over all bonus of +0

 

[Maxperson]

[MENTION=6799649]Arial Black[/MENTION] - the problem I have with your argument is that you are insisting on following the advice laid out in 1e but, then ignoring the context of that advice. In 1e, "normal" stats (as in no penalty or bonus) run from 7-14. Thus, a 3d6 distribution will result in about 90% (someone else can do the exact math) of the population having identical stats from a modifier point of view.

I proved that idea false, or at the very least incredibly misleading many pages ago. In 1e stat ranges had other influences than pure combat pluses that got better or worse within the range you are claiming to be normal and without bonus. Increasing or decreases survival/system shock is in fact a bonus, just a different sort of bonus. Another example is that a strength of 12 gets a +100 weight allowance bonus. In 1e a normal stat was 10-11 and then bonuses and penalties started happening.

There really is no real difference between an 8 Str and a 14 Str. At least, not enough difference to be noticeable.

Except that there is. That 14 has +200 weight allowance bonus over the 8 and 7% chance to bend a freaking bar or lift a gate, where the 8 only has a 1% chance.

 

[Oofta]

Remind me again why this is even a discussion?

Long ago in an edition far, far away there was a mention of rolling 3d6 for ability scores that has never been mentioned again yet is somehow relevant to the discussion of how to generate ability scores for PCs?

 

[TwoSix]

3d6 replace lowest with a 4. Range 6-16 skewed slightly high, average a bit over 11 I think
Lanefan

Not a bad one, although I think I'd prefer it to be "replace lowest with a 4 if it's <4". Taking away someone's 18 because of your variant method would suck.

Averaage 12.5, about 3/4 of rolls between 11 and 15. Not bad.

 

[Arial Black]

Remind me again why this is even a discussion?

Long ago in an edition far, far away there was a mention of rolling 3d6 for ability scores that has never been mentioned again yet is somehow relevant to the discussion of how to generate ability scores for PCs?

Okay, step by step:-

* whatever ability scores a creature has can only be understood in the context of the scores of other creatures in the world. To illustrate this, let's say you're picking up an RPG you have never played or heard of before. You skim the rules, and come across the stat block of an NPC. That NPC has a Strength score of 27. Is 27 good or bad? Is it weakest possible (ability scores are generated on 25 + 2d10)? Is it fairly weak (1d100 for each stat)? Average (1d%/2)? High (10 + 2d10)? Superheroic (3d6)? You cannot possibly tell, unless you have context. In D&D, now and always, the context is that the 'normal' population's scores are represented by the 3d6 bell curve, and the method used to generate the ability scores of PC's (whatever method that might be) is deliberately skewed to give higher results in the context of that bell curve.

* although the underlying assumption was (and remains) that bell curve, games have evolved techniques to make the DM's life easier. The DM doesn't need to pre-generate 20,000 NPCs whenever the party reach a new city(!), he can just invent 'reasonable' stats for NPCs the party meet on the fly; 'reasonable' in the context of that bell curve. These other methods of generating NPCs did not replace the background assumption of that bell curve, they assume that bell curve to this day! Even the stat block of the commoner in the 5E MM reflects that bell curve, as are the stats for every NPC in that section, where their stats are judged (good or bad or average?) in the context of that bell curve. In fact, the bell curve is so ingrained into the structure of D&D that the writer of the rules assumes that we all already understand this so he feels no need to explain it!

* since the general population is assumed to be the bell curve, then any valid character concept must fall within that bell curve, or be measured against it, with credible explanations for stats that go beyond it. This also works the other way: any arrangement of six scores from 3 to 18 is a valid character concept, for PCs and NPCs. Any PC stat generating method that takes away any of those possible scores from 3 to 18 also takes away the concepts that go with those scores.

* another consequence of the bell curve is that all creatures are not created equal! Any method that makes all PCs equal not only takes away the vast majority of valid concepts but also has sacrificed realism on the alter of game balance.

Although sacrificing realism for game balance is a valid choice, and a valid personal preference, what it most definitely is not is a method that 'allows players to play the concept they want', since it denies the vast majority of valid concepts.

That is the source of this part of the discussion. It's not that anyone's preference is a problem, it's that some claims made about a particular method are demonstrably not true.

 

[Oofta]

...

That is the source of this part of the discussion. It's not that anyone's preference is a problem, it's that some claims made about a particular method are demonstrably not true.

I view every edition as stand-alone. For example I don't assume that just because 5E doesn't have rules for creating magic items, the 3.5 rules for creating magic items becomes the default.

The rules for creating magic items in 3.5 is no more relevant to 5E than a rule from 1E. The majority of people who play 5E have never even seen the rules from 1E, and the current version of the game has dramatically different mechanics

The basic assumption that ability scores are based on a 3d6 bell curve is not part of the game. The rules currently only assume is that the average commoner has around a 10 ability score, the minimum ability score is 1, the maximum is 18 with some exceptional individuals getting up to 20 (for most humanoid/NPC races).

Beyond that the DM is free to make whatever assumptions they want based on the style of game they want to play and how they envision their world working. For example, I assume a bell curve as well, just one that is far more clustered around the average than 3d6.

You're basing your entire argument on the Appeal to Tradition fallacy.