D&D 5E Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats

[Jefe Bergenstein]

This was intended. Life isn't always fair. However, if you don't like you it can of course change the rules. What we did was if a player rolled low(1-2 on a d6, 1-3 on a d8, 1-4 on a d10, etc), then the next level you had to roll above half, so 5 on a d8 or 6 on a d10. That kept things random and didn't guarantee high hit points, but prevented rolling 2 or 3 levels in a row low and really hampering survival rates.

So, why not screw casters? Why should clerics all get the same spell slots per level?

Oh, because that's how it was when you were 12 and you never bothered to critically examine it further.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So, why not screw casters?

As I may have mentioned in another thread, there is this pervasive double-standard ....

Why should clerics all get the same spell slots per level?
Oh, because that's how it was when you were 12 and you never bothered to critically examine it further.

In 1e, which I assume is what you're alluding to, a Cleric who had a high WIS got more spells/day, and a low-WIS one fewer - low enough WIS and you suffered a chance of spell failure.

 

[Maxperson]

So, why not screw casters? Why should clerics all get the same spell slots per level?

What part of hit points are rolled for casters, too, do you fail to get? What part of casters have lower hit dice than fighters are you failing to understand? Jeebus man, know what you're talking about.

Oh, because that's how it was when you were 12 and you never bothered to critically examine it further.

You can take your one true way and put it where the sun don't shine.

 

[Yardiff]

If there was an array of 17, 16, 15, 14, 12, 10/8 with a starting character stat cap of 18 I'd use it every time.

 

[Caliburn101]

So... back on topic (but not reeeeally): Point Buy or Standard Array?

Rolling is inherently unfair to players.

It was bad enough in 3rd edition where large progression numbers meant the early advantage given by these was ameliorated over level progression.

But in 5th Edition, with bounded accuracy, random imbalance in stats is massively unfair.

Why should ONE set of dice rolls made at the start of the game make nearly all of the subsequent ones easier or harder?

People that prefer dice rolling for stats and championing it are blind to this, and can come up with no better justification than that it is in the rules, and gives some 'interesting' variety.

Small reward for the player sitting their with a gimped character, and ongoing advantage to the one who just that once was a high roller.

People agonise over whether that +2 or a Feat is better. Well for a low-roller the +2 is a bad-luck tax, and for the high-roller those Feats are yet more gravy as far fewer stat boosts are required for maximum.

The counter argument to point buy is sentimental and completely devoid of mathematical validity.

However, it is in the rules, so if you get a DM who forces you to play in a game where it's the norm, you had better bring your lucky dice for that character creation session, or cheat to not start with a disadvantage.

Rolling for stats is a D&D historical anomaly that the vast majority of other systems don't allow, or don't have as the default build rule.

There is good reason for that.

 

[Arial Black]

There are limitations on how 'realistic' our RPG worlds can be ('realistic' meaning 'makes sense, internally consistent', not 'The Real World of Planet Earth'). We might not want to examine how wearing armour makes you harder to hit, or that you can choose whether or not your sword strike was actually just a knockout blow with the flat of the blade after you already resolved the attack and damage of a killing blow...

Sure, there is a willing suspension of disbelief that is essential to get into character for RPGs which just isn't there when playing chess. "What would a rook do in this situation? I know my rook is a sucker for a pretty face, so I won't take my opponent's queen; I'll ask her on a date instead!"

But it is possible to mess with things in order to service 'balanced' so much that it makes the world so unrealistic that you can't get into it any more, and just treat it like a board game. If I was looking for that then I'd give up and play 4E. *ducks for cover*

It is also possible to move things too far in the 'realistic' direction, and everybody has to play farmers who never go further than seven miles from their village....

Getting the recipe right is crucial, and different tastes mean that the exact balance point varies from table to table. For me, the idea that every person's stats are equal takes things too far away from realistic.

The DM puts us in situations where we imagine that we are our PC and do what our PC would do. In order to make a sensible decision, the world must be sensible. Game mechanics reflect things in the game world, so although game constructs like 'class' and 'level' cannot be known to the creatures in the game world, their equivalents can be (he's the toughest hombre north, south, east AND west of The Pecos!).

What we want to avoid is unrealistic assumptions on how the world works based on player knowledge of the peculiarities of the game mechanics. When we make decisions for our PCs then our PCs should make those decisions based on things they can know. When the BBEG demands the party to send out its most powerful member for a duel to the death, it does not make sense for the party to reply, "No can do! We are all built on 27 points!" Partly because they are talking about game mechanics they cannot possibly know.

If they said, "Don't be stupid; it's a well known law of nature that everyone is equal in total ability if they have had the same experiences", because the game world actually works that way, then that game world is so unrealistic that it would take me out of the role-playing and just leave me with a board game.

If fifty people you know were to have their Str/Dex/Con/Int/Wis/Cha objectively rated, there is no expectation that they would all add up to the same point-buy total. The world doesn't work that way. 'Realistic' worlds do not work that way (except for CloneWorld: The Apocalypse). Imagine a world where you only need one size of clothes or everyone got the exact same SAT score.

We all have varying amounts of tolerance for that kind of unreality, and varying needs for the PCs to be identical in order to be 'fair'.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Rolling is inherently unfair to players.

Seriously? Again?

Everyone rolls the same dice, using the same method, that's fair.

The results may be radically imbalanced PCs, but the method is perfectly fair.

It was bad enough in 3rd edition where large progression numbers meant the early advantage given by these was ameliorated over level progression.

But in 5th Edition, with bounded accuracy, random imbalance in stats is massive...

ASIs do even out an imbalance in primary stat over time - they shift it to secondary or tertiary stats, which are lower impact, so it's not erased, but it's reduced in significance.

Why should ONE set of dice rolls made at the start of the game make nearly all of the subsequent ones easier or harder?

View attachment 83177

However, it is in the rules, so if you get a DM who forces you to play in a game where it's the norm, you had better bring your lucky dice for that character creation session, or cheat to not start with a disadvantage.

Array is also clearly a player option in the standard rules. So you can't guarantee that someone won't be OP, but you can at least assure that you're not sub-par.

 

[Oofta]

Seriously? Again?

Everyone rolls the same dice, using the same method, that's fair.

The results may be radically imbalanced PCs, but the method is perfectly fair.

ASIs do even out an imbalance in primary stat over time - they shift it to secondary or tertiary stats, which are lower impact, so it's not erased, but it's reduced in significance.

View attachment 83177

Array is also clearly a player option in the standard rules. So you can't guarantee that someone won't be OP, but you can at least assure that you're not sub-par.

So...

1) The results of rolling are inherently uneven and unfair, therefore rolling is unfair
2) It is too fair.
3) go to step 1

 

[Tony Vargas]

So...

1) The results of rolling are inherently uneven and unfair, therefore rolling is unfair

2) Point out actual definition of 'fair' in the context of a game, and that what we're really talking about is imbalance...

3) go to step 1

Let's try to speak the same language, Oofta. Yes, I agree that rolling gives imbalanced results and is necessarily for folks who hate balance. Yes, I agree that hating balance makes you literally a bad person who should be consigned to the inner circles of Hell and forced to play your most despised edition of D&D with clones of yourself who always roll better than you for all eternity.
But it's not inherently unfair, just irredeemably evil.

(I hope everyone takes that in the Lowkey-13-ripping-on-Paladins-and-those-who-play-them, over the top self-mocking edgelord humor, kinda way that it's meant. I don't really believe anyone's getting consigned to hell. Mainly because I don't believe in an afterlife, but still...)

If not, I'm sure you can get Morrus to consign me to an inner circle of ENHell.



Tip your waitstaff.

 

[Oofta]

2) Point out actual definition of 'fair' in the context of a game, and that what we're really talking about is imbalance... Let's try to speak the same language, Oofta. Yes, I agree that rolling gives imbalanced results and is necessarily for folks who hate balance. Yes, I agree that hating balance makes you literally a bad person who should be consigned to the inner circles of Hell and forced to play your most despised edition of D&D with clones of yourself who always roll better than you for all eternity.
But it's not inherently unfair, just irredeemably evil.

(I hope everyone takes that in the Lowkey-13-ripping-on-Paladins-and-those-who-play-them, over the top self-mocking edgelord humor, kinda way that it's meant. I don't really believe anyone's getting consigned to hell. Mainly because I don't believe in an afterlife, but still...)

If not, I'm sure you can get Morrus to consign me to an inner circle of ENHell.



Tip your waitstaff.

I've given up on whether any assertion is correct, I'm just cataloging the list of infinite loops this thread has generated.

1) rolling is fun
2) no it's not
3) go to step 1

1) rolling is more realistic
2) no it's not, and even if it was why does it matter
3) go to step 1

1) The results of rolling are inherently imbalanced and unfair, therefore rolling is unfair
2) It is too fair.
3) go to step 1

1) less filling
2) tastes great
3) go to step 1

Hmm ... maybe that last one doesn't fit but you get my drift.