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

[Oofta]

3e even baked this right in to the PH: if your rolled stats didn't give you a cumulative bonus of at least +0, start again.

Indeed - IME after the first few adventures wealth imbalance becomes far more of an issue than stat imbalance; if for no other reason than being rich (be it in items, money, or whatever) often provides the means to get richer, while poorer characters - unless very lucky - can't catch up.

And wealth imbalance simply isn't something a DM can fix without dictating to the players how their PCs are to divide their treasure, and in most cases that ain't gonna go over very well.

I've always controlled wealth. I don't randomize treasure. I primarily give out gold and have a curated magic mart. People can ask for whatever they want but I decide if it's available.

Wealth imbalance control is easy if you care.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Even more so if you don't allow rearranging of rolls.

This is something I forgot to mention upthread for my games. If you roll in my games, you roll IN ORDER, but you get a 7th roll, which can replace any single of the first six rolls. There is no rearranging otherwise.

 

[Lanefan]

I've always controlled wealth. I don't randomize treasure. I primarily give out gold and have a curated magic mart. People can ask for whatever they want but I decide if it's available.

You can control the wealth-given-out all you like. My point is that you can't control how the players/PCs divide it or what they do with it; and that's where the imbalance comes in.

Wealth imbalance control is easy if you care.

If during in-character treasury division using the party's established methods (roll-off?) character A ends up getting the high-end magic armour and high-end magic weapon while character B gets no magic gear and no cash compensation, you've got a wealth imbalance that you-as-DM can't control....at least, not without stomping all over player agency.

 

[Oofta]

You can control the wealth-given-out all you like. My point is that you can't control how the players/PCs divide it or what they do with it; and that's where the imbalance comes in.

If during in-character treasury division using the party's established methods (roll-off?) character A ends up getting the high-end magic armour and high-end magic weapon while character B gets no magic gear and no cash compensation, you've got a wealth imbalance that you-as-DM can't control....at least, not without stomping all over player agency.

Which is why I discuss distribution of gold in session 0 and encourage even division. I don't include random magical items as loot, although I may give items as gifts.

I don't remember the last time I gave out magic treasure unless it was something a PC was specifically questing for.

Controlling wealth disparity is easy if you care. Personally I want the PC to matter more than their items.

You simply seem to like, and want, more PC power randomness than I do.

 

[Lanefan]

Which is why I discuss distribution of gold in session 0 and encourage even division. I don't include random magical items as loot, although I may give items as gifts.

I don't remember the last time I gave out magic treasure unless it was something a PC was specifically questing for.

So they never find magic items during their adventures? Seems...odd, somehow.

Controlling wealth disparity is easy if you care. Personally I want the PC to matter more than their items.

Sure. My question is, how do you achieve this control of wealth disparity without telling the players how to play their characters and-or divide their treasure?

And I should point out, even if you go by the (mistaken) 5e idea of magic items not having a monetary value, they still count as wealth.

You simply seem to like, and want, more PC power randomness than I do.

In stat generation etc., perhaps. But wealth imbalance (a MUCH bigger issue) is a thing I'm interested in curtailing if possible but - non-negotiably - without impacting player agency; hence my asking how you do it.

 

[ECMO3]

But a wizard with 12 con and false life is even better. Another thing you might not be considering is that yes a 10th level monster that can chew through 60 hit points is likely to be able to chew through 70 or 80, but not always or even often in the same number of rounds. 1 extra round without needing to expend resources from either yourself or another party member can make a huge difference in the fight.

Sure, more hps is always better than less all else being equal, but it is not IMO generally better than having those abilities elsewhere, and the amount you get from Constitution is small. The difference between 80 and 60 hps at 10th level is 4 points of Constitution (which is generally 5-6 points taken from other stats on point buy) that is a lot to give up elsewhere for those 20 hit points.

 

[cbwjm]

I find division of treasure doesn't really matter with my groups, they just divide it up however they want, normally giving magical items to whomever can make the best use of it. Sometimes this will also lead to exchanging or selling of items if no one can make use of them. Coin, or coin adjacent treasure, is normally divided up evenly between everyone.

 

[ECMO3]

I've noticed that you are really taken with bladesingers. I played one once and rolled an 18 for dex and 16 for int, which was 20 and 17 once I added in my elven bonuses. Between mage armor and shield, I was virtually untouchable and it got worse when we found a cloak of displacement that I talked the rest of the party into letting me wear.

The thing is that while bladesinger = wizard, wizard =/= bladesinger. The vast majority of wizards out there are not bladesingers and don't have those phenomenal additions to AC. Hit points or key for their survival and responding to discussions about that with bladesingers X, Y and Z isn't really helpful, because the wizard category is so much more than just that one subclass.

I agree, but "regular" Wizards are not targeted like that style of bladesingers either and when they are they still have pretty stiff defenses typically, which combined with the lessor frequency of being targeted, makes them pretty darn survivable overall. Subclasses like Abjuration, War Magic, Divination and to a lessor extent Enchantment and Transmutation that bring significant subclass features that boost saves, mitigate damage or both, not to the extent of a bladesinger, but significant when you consider they are not targeted every single turn like the guys on the front line are.

I honestly play Bladesingers more than all other wizards combined and more than most full classes except Rogue and Ranger and there are many play styles to play with a Bladesinger. When I am playing them though I am doing like you - maxing dex and intelligence and drawing as many enemy attacks as possible to pull them away from other PCs. Most Wizards are doing the opposite; avoiding attacks and to the degree they can making it easier for enemies to target other party members.

Obviously there are exceptions. If you are play a party of 4 Illusion Wizards inside a tight dungeon they are probably going to go down frequently, but make it one Wizard, out in the open with a Fighter, Cleric and Rogue and with smart play the Wizard will usually be the last to go down.

 

[Hussar]

In fact, DND_Reborn's post directly disproves this.

And yet, he agreed with me... As in not so much as a quibble with what I said.

I think that perhaps you are not quite making the slam dunk argument that you think you are.

Look, you asked for math to prove the point, it was provided. If you don't like the results, perhaps go talk to the person who provided the math.

 

[Sacrosanct]

And yet, he agreed with me... As in not so much as a quibble with what I said.

I think that perhaps you are not quite making the slam dunk argument that you think you are.

Look, you asked for math to prove the point, it was provided. If you don't like the results, perhaps go talk to the person who provided the math.

I'm sorry. I missed the post by DND_Reborn that agreed with your assertations:

Die rolling is just a way to play higher powered characters while pretending that it's "fair" or something like that.

the average is ALWAYS higher than base point buy. It is never below.

Perhaps you can show me those posts of theirs, because the posts I read, they seem to dispute your claims. If you shift goal posts and revise your position to match what they said, then that's hardly them agreeing with you, that's you changing your position to agree with them.

If you can provide those quotes that agree with what you claimed above, I'll certainly apologize for missing those.