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

[cbwjm]

Cool!

Question: does your group worry about disparities in stats, or would they if stats were rolled?

We don't worry about disparities at all and we always roll. Funniest thing is that the PC with the best stats in one of our current games was the first (so far only) one to die.

 

[Lanefan]

We don't worry about disparities at all and we always roll. Funniest thing is that the PC with the best stats in one of our current games was the first (so far only) one to die.

Just for kicks, and if you've got the time-patience-etc., run the numbers on starting stats vs character career length in whatever of your games you have data for. I'd be interested in knowing if there's any correlation.

In my games (all 1e-based) there's been only a very slight correlation, well within statistical margin-of-error. What makes a much bigger difference is that survival begets survival - if you make it through your first three adventures the odds become much higher of your making it through your next however-many-you-go-on; and starting stats have very little influence on this.

 

[Hussar]

You've also the uncertainty of not knowing whether you'll end up with 85 points or 65 or whatever.

I disagree. You will never end up with 65 points because that character will be tossed and the player will reroll. Never minding that the odds of rolling that badly on most rolling methods are vanishingly small.

 

[DND_Reborn]

FWIW, my group was missing half the players tonight, so we decided to make a "secondary" game for the players who routinely are showing up... and here were their ability scores rolling 4d6k3:

18, 15, 13, 12, 12, 9; avg. 13.17, total 79

18, 12, 11, 11, 11, 11; avg. 12.33, total 74

14, 14, 13, 13, 11, 9; avg. 12.33, total 74 (my rolls)

16, 14, 14, 11, 10, 7; avg. 12, total 72

So, only one had the same average as the standard array, the other three were all higher.

Now, just so people know: 65 points or less is about 13% chance, why 85 points or higher is a bit over 5%. 65 points could be 14, 12, 10, 10, 10, 9. Which adding in racial bumps could be easily decent enough to play.

As for "agreement" with @Hussar. While I don't consider tossing out a bad set of rolls if that option is agreed upon beforehand as "cheating", I do support (both mathematically and anecdotally) that most players who roll will have better scores. For an entire group (4-5 or more players) to roll scores and have them all be below 72 points is very small; statistically significant small, even.

Anyway, it is "always higher to roll"? No, of course not.
Is it "pretending to be fair"? As long as all the rules are established for how the table wants to do it, yes, it is fair.
Unfortunately, I know and have known MANY players in the past who will cheat/fudge rolls to get better scores. I just ignore it. If it that important to them, I let them have it. It was more common in AD&D where you really needed higher numbers for ANY bonus, but it happened in 3E and even now in 5E.

 

[cbwjm]

Just for kicks, and if you've got the time-patience-etc., run the numbers on starting stats vs character career length in whatever of your games you have data for. I'd be interested in knowing if there's any correlation.

In my games (all 1e-based) there's been only a very slight correlation, well within statistical margin-of-error. What makes a much bigger difference is that survival begets survival - if you make it through your first three adventures the odds become much higher of your making it through your next however-many-you-go-on; and starting stats have very little influence on this.

Unfortunately, I don't keep those details, one of those things I kind of wish I had kept over the years.

 

[Lanefan]

Unfortunately, I know and have known MANY players in the past who will cheat/fudge rolls to get better scores. I just ignore it.

Instead of just ignoring the cheating, I prefer to ignore those players entirely by immediately excusing them from further participation in my game.

Rolls are done at the table with others present. Show up with a pre-rolled character and you've wasted your time in making it, as you'll be starting over.

 

[Horwath]

Rolls are done at the table with others present. Show up with a pre-rolled character and you've wasted your time in making it, as you'll be starting over.

this is one of the reasons I also prefer point buy/array over rolling.

make your own character in peace if you want it that way.

Saves everyone lot's of time.


for rolls there are always endless debates about tweaking rolls.

4d6D1, arrange how ever, or
5d6D2 in order, or
any number of 5d6D2 fixed and 4d6D1 for assingn.
or 2d6+6 in order

then:
if you roll an ability of 5 or lower, reroll,
if you didn't roll a single 15 or higher reroll,
if total is 68 or lower, reroll,
if there are 4 or more odd scores, reroll,
if 3 scores are below 10, reroll,
if "insert any of your house rule ideas for re rolls"...


and then you are just... FFS, everyone point buys...

 

[Lanefan]

this is one of the reasons I also prefer point buy/array over rolling.

make your own character in peace if you want it that way.

Up until fairly recently that wasn't possible in my game, as there was only one copy of the rules and it's kept here.

Now, with most of it online, rolling up remotely has become a theoretical possiblity. But, theoretical is as far as it'll get. (there's enough other significant/cheatable rolls involved that even if I used point-buy or array for stats you'd still have to do nearly all of your char-gen at the table)

for rolls there are always endless debates about tweaking rolls.

...

Endless debates here in the forum, perhaps. At the table it's cut and dried, as noted upthread.

 

[Horwath]

18, 15, 13, 12, 12, 9; avg. 13.17, total 79

18, 12, 11, 11, 11, 11; avg. 12.33, total 74

14, 14, 13, 13, 11, 9; avg. 12.33, total 74 (my rolls)

16, 14, 14, 11, 10, 7; avg. 12, total 72

huge amount of odd scores,we used to roll and then we allowed to negate 2 or 4 or even 6 odd scores to even, by pairing them and then removing 1 point from higher score to lower or two of the same odd scores and giving +1 and +1. with that some array here would be promising.

1. 18, 15, 13, 12, 12, 9. I would not touch anything here, just add +1/+1/+1 floating into: 18, 16 ,14, 12, 12, 10. great character

2. 18, 12, 11, 11, 11, 11 into 18, 12, 12, 12, 10, 10 then add +2/+1 to 20, 13, 12, 12, 10, 10 little one trick pony

3. 14, 14, 13, 13, 11, 9. worst roll . fixed odd scores to 14, 14, 14, 12, 10, 10 then +2/+1 to 16, 15, 14, 12, 10, 10

4. 16, 14, 14, 11, 10, 7 into 16, 14, 14, 10, 10, 8 then +2/+1 into 18, 15, 14, 10, 10, 8. smells like 8 int, 10 wis, 10 cha barbarian or fighter.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

A consideration for our next campaign, to enticingly allow for a 20 out of the gate while all but guaranteeing a 7 or lower in another stat:
(3d6+1d8)k3 x5, reserving the 5 dropped scores. The middle 3 of those 5 becomes the 6th score.