D&D 5E Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats

[Maxperson]

But, [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION], when your curve is completely outside the range of believablility, then it's not realistic, is it?

That only matters if realism is all or nothing, which it isn't. It's a graded scale so even if the bell curve doesn't mirror reality, that it is closer to reality than not having a curve makes it "more realistic".

And AGAIN, in 5e, the range is NOT 3-18. It's not. There is not a single piece of evidence you can point to to support that claim. The charts go 1-20. PC chargen taps out at 20 if you die roll.

5e does not use a 3-18 scale. And since it doesn't use a 3-18 scale, then any other completely arbitrary scale we choose to use works. If you use point buy or standard array, the scale is 8-15 FOR PC's. And PC's only. Because ALL NPC'S have their stats dictated by the DM with absolutely no requirement for random generation at all and absolutely no requirement that they need stats in the first place.

The range of stats is 3-20 whether you use point buy or array, or not. The system that 5e uses is roll and array and optionally point buy. At no time is rolling not part of the system unless you house rule it out, even if nobody ever rolls. If you do house rule it out, then your house rule has no place in this discussion, which is about 5e rules.

There is no 8-15 scale in 5e for adventurers. If you choose point buy or array, you are limiting yourself from access to the full range of stats that adventurers have.

 

[Maxperson]

"Typically" leaves it loose, but the idea is there.

Right. Typically it's 3-18, but some have 19-20.

 

[Maxperson]

I have no problem with someone saying the like die rolling because it feels more realistic or believable to them. No problem.

I do have a problem with flat statements claiming that die rolling is more realistic.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World

That's because as you've shown time and time again, you don't understand realism. You act as if it's all or nothing, and that's where you go wrong.

 

[Hussar]

No I just think that Lanefan’s “6” is actually closer to a 1.1 where 1 is point buy. The amount of realism you gain by rolling is so negligible that it’s a pointless distinction.

If rolling results in about 20% of your population being either physically or mentally challenged or at the bleeding edge of what is humanly possible, any arguments about realism go straight out the window.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World

 

[Maxperson]

No I just think that Lanefan’s “6” is actually closer to a 1.1 where 1 is point buy. The amount of realism you gain by rolling is so negligible that it’s a pointless distinction.

It's pointless to you, but not to a lot of us. I also disagree that it's so small of a realism gain, but at least it's good to see you acknowledge that there is more realism with rolling.

If rolling results in about 20% of your population being either physically or mentally challenged or at the bleeding edge of what is humanly possible, any arguments about realism go straight out the window.

Just because it's not utterly realistic, doesn't mean that it's not more realistic or that realism arguments have gone out the window. It just means that there's room to improve on the realism scale.

 

[Hussar]

"Utterly realistic"? Seriously? That's so far away from anything approaching realistic that straight 10's for all NPC's looks quite reasonable. 1 in 5? That's not realism. That's not even close to believable for me. Never minding that you're insisting that 5e NPC's use 4d6-L which is even further from anything believable.

My point is, even if die rolling was more realistic than point buy or array (which I'm not particularly convinced it is), any gain in realism is dwarfed by the degree of unbelievability that die rolling creates.

IOW, adding a drop of red to a gallon bucket of blue paint does not make it purple. Is it more purple than a bucket of blue paint? Sure, maybe. But, who cares? It's still blue. Any purple is completely washed way by the blue.

Now, again, if you want to argue that it's more believable for you, that's groovy. I got no beef with that. That's just a personal preference. But, if you're seriously arguing that die rolling somehow objectively results in a more realistic world, then we are just not going to agree. Die rolling creates an even more unbelievable world than straight 10's. At least with straight 10's for NPC's, everyone is average. You don't have 1 in 5 NPC's that are off the charts.

And, let's be honest, no DM will EVER stick to a die roll for an NPC if he or she is unhappy with the result. Even die hard die rollers will simply roll a new set rather than having that barbarian chief with a 3 stat. It's not going to happen. It's the same issue as die rolled PC's (where players use the C.H.E.A.T. system to get the character they want) magnified. Claiming that all NPC's are die rolled and then never actually rolling any NPC's is pretty far out there. And then claiming that die rolling is more realistic when no DM will EVER stick with a die rolled NPC that he or she is not happy with pretty much blows that out the window.

 

[Arial Black]

If rolling results in about 20% of your population being either physically or mentally challenged or at the bleeding edge of what is humanly possible, any arguments about realism go straight out the window.

See, that's where you're going wrong!

Rolling does not result in 'about 20% of your population being either physically or mentally challenged'!

What rolling a, say, Int 3 does is say that this person is statistically the least intelligent person in the statistically average roomful of 216 people.

Just like rolling a Str 18 does not mean that 1-in-216 people is the strongest person in the world; just that Str 18 is statistically the strongest in that hypothetical room of 216 people.

The very fact that much fewer than 1-in-216 are the 'best' or 'worst' person (in a given statistic) out of a population of 7 billion (or whatever) shows that the 'statistically average room of 216 people' simply does not include either the 'best' or 'worst' stat in the world population!

This is why we don't need to worry about the 3d6 bell curve not mapping exactly onto real world population bell curves. You're putting the cart before the horse. In D&D, the bell curve tells us what the population looks like, while in real life the population tells us what the bell curve looks like.

 

[Arial Black]

The distribution for one die is approximately a bell curve also; it's just not a very good approximation.

I suppose an argument could be made that a straight line is approximately a curved line....!

...Although it's not an argument I would support.

 

[Arial Black]

Well, I've been away for a week and this thread is still going strong.

So, it's not all my fault!

 

[Hussar]

See, that's where you're going wrong!

Rolling does not result in 'about 20% of your population being either physically or mentally challenged'!

What rolling a, say, Int 3 does is say that this person is statistically the least intelligent person in the statistically average roomful of 216 people.

Just like rolling a Str 18 does not mean that 1-in-216 people is the strongest person in the world; just that Str 18 is statistically the strongest in that hypothetical room of 216 people.

The very fact that much fewer than 1-in-216 are the 'best' or 'worst' person (in a given statistic) out of a population of 7 billion (or whatever) shows that the 'statistically average room of 216 people' simply does not include either the 'best' or 'worst' stat in the world population!

This is why we don't need to worry about the 3d6 bell curve not mapping exactly onto real world population bell curves. You're putting the cart before the horse. In D&D, the bell curve tells us what the population looks like, while in real life the population tells us what the bell curve looks like.

Ahh, so we're back to mechanics telling us what our game worlds should look like. No thanks. I don't play that way. My game world looks how I want it to look and I use the mechanics during the game to resolve different contests, nothing more.

And, how can it not include the best and worst stat? Are you saying that die rolling should be constrained somehow so that those best and worst scores are not possible? IOW, applying the 8-15 array? Otherwise, we're back to that 20% best/worst ratio. What exactly are the stats for best and worst if it's not 3 and 18?

It works for you, and that's great. I'm just pointing out why it doesn't work for me.