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

[Sacrosanct]

I wonder how many folks changed the stats for Pre-Gens if we assume the argument that players will cheat the system to get higher stats. I suppose that begs the question, "How many people used the pre-gens in the first place?" We did, often as either replacement PCs when yours died, or because of how modules were set up (short sessions), we used them to jump right into play rather than spend the time to create new characters. Then of course, during tourney play you kinda had to use them. Also, seeing these pre-gens in the first months of starting the game is what seemed what a normal PC would look like to us (along with Morgon Ironwolf, whose stats I posted earlier), so it didn't dawn on us to try to cheat for higher stats. Then again, we did a lot of rolling in front of each other anyway, so it would be hard to cheat.

Anyway, here are the stats of pregens from several adventures and you can see their stats

And then you've got something like Tomb of Horrors, where it seems stats were way higher than normal, presumably to help offset how hard that module was (especially for DEX and CON it appears--two key stats for survivability)

 

[Hussar]

Heh, I see we're back to dueling anecdotes and cherry picking. Basic adventures instead of the ones that are somewhat more famous.

So, let's see how the other half lives shall we? Here's the pregens from Against the Giants:

9 characters, Stats of 82, 85, 89 (!), 82, 91 (!), 93, 77, 95, and finally a whopping 96.

Ok, so, maybe that's an outlier. Let's try the Slavelords. Another classic:

So that's 81, 71, 91, 81, 68, 78, 80, 83, 82

Well, that's two for two now. Howzabout another module with pregens - Dragonlance? Oh yeah, pretty much the same as above.

Hrm, I wonder why I say that die rolled parties would average somewhere close to 80? 18 pregens and exactly one that was lower than 72.

And even the Keep on the Borderlands pregens have more than a few that are well north of 72. I mean, check out fighter #3 above. Someone else can do the math because I'm pretty sure that those characters were NOT generated using Basic rules - 3d6 in order? Not bloody likely. 16 charactersX6 rolls each and there is only one 5 no fours or threes, and while only one 18, there's a suspicious number of seventeens and sixteens there.

 

[Lanefan]

Ok, so, maybe that's an outlier. Let's try the Slavelords. Another classic:
View attachment 265687
So that's 81, 71, 91, 81, 68, 78, 80, 83, 82

Averages ranging from 11.33 up to an outlier at 15.17, with second highest being 13.83 and most being in the low-13 range. In other words, very likely rolled using 5d6K3 which gives an expected overall average of about 13.4.

And even the Keep on the Borderlands pregens have more than a few that are well north of 72. I mean, check out fighter #3 above. Someone else can do the math because I'm pretty sure that those characters were NOT generated using Basic rules - 3d6 in order? Not bloody likely. 16 charactersX6 rolls each and there is only one 5 no fours or threes, and while only one 18, there's a suspicious number of seventeens and sixteens there.

Stats etc. aside, this brings back some memories in that when I first started playing the party had both Blodgett (as a Gnome) and Kayen (as Kaija) Telva in it as NPCs. Blodgett didn't last long but Kaija is still active today, though long since retired from adventuring.

That said, I've always suspected those pre-gen stats were representative of what was vaguely expected as the norm in 1e; in part because bonuses didn't start until 15 or higher. I'm fine with them, in any case.

 

[Sacrosanct]

You know what, I can't stop people from logging out to see posts from people who have ignored them. But I'm going to make an official ask that if someone ignores you, you don't log out to see what they say, and then reply or quote to them. I believe either @Morrus or @Umbran have made that unofficial policy in the past, IIRC.

 

[pemerton]

You know what, I can't stop people from logging out to see posts from people who have ignored them. But I'm going to make an official ask that if someone ignores you, you don't log out to see what they say, and then reply or quote to them. I believe either @Morrus or @Umbran have made that unofficial policy in the past, IIRC.

My understanding is the opposite: that there is no board policy against ignoring another poster, so that they can't see your content, but nevertheless following and even responding to their content (with those responses being invisible to them, because they can't see the content of someone who has ignored them).

 

[Sacrosanct]

Averages ranging from 11.33 up to an outlier at 15.17, with second highest being 13.83 and most being in the low-13 range. In other words, very likely rolled using 5d6K3 which gives an expected overall average of about 13.4.

Stats etc. aside, this brings back some memories in that when I first started playing the party had both Blodgett (as a Gnome) and Kayen (as Kaija) Telva in it as NPCs. Blodgett didn't last long but Kaija is still active today, though long since retired from adventuring.

That said, I've always suspected those pre-gen stats were representative of what was vaguely expected as the norm in 1e; in part because bonuses didn't start until 15 or higher. I'm fine with them, in any case.

I think it's important pointing out (which is in the OP and seems to be getting lost), the discussion about rolling is not only about averages compared to point buy, but I recall specifically calling out (and repeating later) that with rolling you may also roll lower than the lowest point buy baseline stat. I.e., it's about the gamble. So you can have a PC with a 6 or 7 in a stat while also having a slightly higher average than point buy would. That gamble/risk is part of the appeal, along with randomness, to folks who may prefer rolling as to opposed having every PC look the same.

 

[Sacrosanct]

My understanding is the opposite: that there is no board policy against ignoring another poster, so that they can't see your content, but nevertheless following and even responding to their content (with those responses being invisible to them, because they can't see the content of someone who has ignored them).

I seem to recall mod/admin responses to people who continued to reply to others who have asked them not to/ignored them. I could be wrong though. No one likes to be misrepresented, especially when it's behind an ignore wall where the ignored person is circumventing the rules to continue an argument and/or misrepresent the original person to everyone else "behind their back", so to speak.

 

[cbwjm]

I think it's important pointing out (which is in the OP and seems to be getting lost), the discussion about rolling is not only about averages compared to point buy, but I recall specifically calling out (and repeating later) that with rolling you may also roll lower than the lowest point buy baseline stat. I.e., it's about the gamble. So you can have a PC with a 6 or 7 in a stat while also having a slightly higher average than point buy would. That gamble/risk is part of the appeal, along with randomness, to folks who may prefer rolling as to opposed having every PC look the same.

It also leads to some fun characters, my friend created a 5 dex loxodon rogue. Kept joking about how we should use charisma for stealth to see if anyone wants to talk about the elephant in the room.

 

[Morrus]

Take board policy discussions to Meta, please. Thanks!

 

[Hussar]

((Just to point out, I replied using the Tapatalk app and it doesn't actually show that I was ignored. Since I now know that I have been, I'll drop out of this conversation. And, as a weird thing, since I'm on my PC now, Morrus's mod warnings do not show up to me on Tapatalk. It's really weird.))