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

[Hussar]

Ah, here we're back to insinuations about people's integrity - both in hiding their "true" intentions and in actually cheating.

Then take a look at the groups that die roll. Show that the average isn't somewhere close to about 80 points in the majority of cases.

Because every single time this comes up, that's exactly what the results are.

Look, there's nothing wrong with wanting to play higher baseline characters. That's perfectly fine. But, let's not be coy about it. If you're using a method that will in almost all cases result in a higher baseline (as in virtually never below the baseline and often above and sometimes far above) then it's not unreasonable to say that that's a reason to prefer die rolling.

 

[Hussar]

You're trading certainty+lower for uncertainty+(probably) higher. Even more so if you don't allow rearranging of rolls.

But there is no uncertainty. The odds of you getting lower are very, very small, while the odds of being equal or higher are much greater. That's not a trade off.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Then take a look at the groups that die roll. Show that the average isn't somewhere close to about 80 points in the majority of cases.

Because every single time this comes up, that's exactly what the results are.

Again, what evidence do you have that supports this? Literally the posts that you say agree with you do not remotely make this claim.

 

[Hussar]

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

/snip

Yep. I've done a lot of this before so I figured I would chime in on the numbers.

/snip
I'm sure there are groups out there who roll and you are stuck with what you roll, no matter what, but I haven't seen a group ever do that. I know in the 40+ years I've been playing, even when we used 4d6k3, if your rolls were really bad, you got to roll again. If you were happy, you kept them.

Looks a lot like he's agreeing with me, and at no point did we disagree about anything.

But, again, you asked for proof, and it was provided. Granted my interpretation is perhaps less than charitable, but, again, all you have to do is canvass your current group and tell me that I'm wrong. How many groups have you played in that die rolled their characters where the GROUP is lower than the baseline. Not an individual character - that's possible. But the group? Nope.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Looks a lot like he's agreeing with me, and at no point did we disagree about anything.

But, again, you asked for proof, and it was provided. Granted my interpretation is perhaps less than charitable, but, again, all you have to do is canvass your current group and tell me that I'm wrong. How many groups have you played in that die rolled their characters where the GROUP is lower than the baseline. Not an individual character - that's possible. But the group? Nope.

The numbers they provided directly refuted your claims you said. I don't know in what universe that means "agreeing", but whatevs. Just because someone doesn't explicitly disagree with everything you say doesn't mean they agree with you on everything.

It's not a difference of interpretation for them to say

"55% have 73 point totals or higher"

And you to say "every table has close to 80."

It's not interpretation for them to say

"39% are below the standard array in point total."

And for you to say "Every table is above, none are below."

It's not interpretation because it's black and white and you're simply either ignoring it or..something less charitable. I don't know which, and really, I don't care. You keep saying "canvass your own group and you'll see" and I've been telling you I have been doing that and you're wrong. I don't expect I'll see you provide any evidence for what you claimed, so I think we're probably done here.

 

[Mort]

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.

That was my line of reasoning when I tried out a CON 12 Paladin.

Campaign started at 5th level and I figured the 5-10 extra HP from a higher CON wouldn't be worth the hit to CHA or DEX (edit: forgot it was dex paladin).

It DID NOT go well!

I dropped in EVERY single initial combat. After 2 sessions of this I asked the DM if I could rework things a bit. Pumped Con to 16 (at the cost of CHA and switching out Shield Master to Resilient Con) and the extra HP (not to mention the MUCH better concentration saves) have been absolutely invaluable.

 

[Oofta]

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

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.

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.

I wouldn't say they never find magic items, but it is fairly rare and when they do it's pretty obvious who should get the item because it's not actually random (although I do roll sometimes for inspiration). I don't tell people how to play, although I do make recommendations on how to split treasure during session 0. Maybe because of the tone I set, there's rarely if ever conflict. If there's ever a question of who gets an item, it's discussed amongst the group and it goes to whomever needs it most or who has the fewest items. Magic items in my campaign do have a monetary value, I worked out a price list based on rarity because I think it's silly not to have one.

For the most part I simply hand out gold or have someone powerful reward with gifts for specific individuals, in part to balance things out if I see an imbalance.. When it comes to purchasing things I limit what's available. For example at lower levels boots of flying were not available (they are at higher levels) and a cloak of displacement will probably never be for sale. I also keep treasure and magic items fairly limited since they can cause an imbalance. My current group just reached 17 and there's one very rare item amongst them, although that's likely to change soon.

 

[Hussar]

so I think we're probably done here.

Probably best.

 

[ECMO3]

That was my line of reasoning when I tried out a CON 12 Paladin.

Campaign started at 5th level and I figured the 5-10 extra HP from a higher CON wouldn't be worth the hit to CHA or DEX (edit: forgot it was dex paladin).

It DID NOT go well!

I dropped in EVERY single initial combat. After 2 sessions of this I asked the DM if I could rework things a bit. Pumped Con to 16 (at the cost of CHA and switching out Shield Master to Resilient Con) and the extra HP (not to mention the MUCH better concentration saves) have been absolutely invaluable.

It has been a while, but we had a Halfling Dexterity Paladin-Assassin at our table during the early years of 5E. She had standard array and started with a 16Dex and 16Charisma (this was before moving abilities with Tasha's). I don't remember all her scores, but she needed a 13 strength to multiclass, which makes Constitution 10, 12 or 8. That character did fine and actually recorded the highest damage from a single attack I have seen in play (sneak attack smite critical). She was still alive when we quit the campaign at 16th level. I don't remember her going down but I am sure she did some, not enough that I noticed and remember though.

In any case, in terms of raw math there are 3 parts to going down in combat -
1. the number of times you are targeted
2. the amount of damage you take as a result of being targeted
3. the amount of hit points you can take before you reach 0

Decreasing the first two or increasing the last will mean you will stay up longer.

If you are going to be in melee as a tank, it is hard to reduce the number of times you are targeted, you are going to be targeted a lot, so you need to either reduce damage by taking less through higher AC or damage resistance, or you have to increase the number of hit points you can lose before you go down.

Paladins generally have few ways of reducing damage, and few ways to increase their hit points beyond what they wake up with, their AC is good but not great and not even good if you are playing a dex Paladin unless you are a mountain Dwarf and can wear heavy armor with a low strength.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

So, here's my argument in a nutshell.

If Player A came to the table with a die rolled character with 6 12's, most DM's would let that player reroll that. Even though that is 100% a baseline character, there are a significant number of DM's who would consider that "unplayable" or at least really underpowered.

If Player B came to the table with 14, 14, 14, 12, 12, 12, most Dm's wouldn't even bat an eye. That's perfectly fine and no one would question that, even though that's actually a 76 stat character and significantly more powerful than a baseline character.

If Player C came to the table with 12, 12, 12, 10, 10, 10, that's pretty much a guaranteed reroll. It's a pretty rare DM that would insist that those rolls stand. Even with 4x12 and 2x10, even though that's a 68 stat character, would likely get rerolled.

So the floor for die rolled characters is probably about 70. There might be this or that character that's lower than that, but it's pretty rare. And, an entire group of 70? Never going to happen. Is there anyone out there that can honestly say that the highest stats in their group was 70? Ever? I'm certainly not going to hold my breath on that one.

For all the arguments about "exploring characters" and "organic play" and whatever, it seems that all that goes straight out the window when the rubber meets the road. Generous die generation methods mean that most characters will be above baseline, and probably significantly above baseline. Groups will always average above baseline.

When the floor of die rolled characters is effectively baseline or higher, I don't find it particularly difficult to come to the conclusion that die roll generation is based around having higher than baseline characters. Which is perfectly fine. Play what you want. But arguments that it's all about "exploring the character" and "wanting weaknesses" and "weaknesses define the character" kind of fall flat when the majority of die rolled characters actually don't have weaknesses and are in fact stronger than baseline.

And, finally, again, for evidence, I direct the reader to their own die rolled groups. Simply add up the numbers. Is your group below baseline on average? How about your last group? Or the one before that? Or the one before that? Have you ever played in a group that averaged below baseline? @DND_Reborn said that only 2% of groups would average below baseline using 4d6-1. Are you part of that 2%? And, doesn't that mean that 98% would be baseline or higher?