D&D 5E Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats

[Maxperson]

Hahahaha...OK, I take it back. You do have a sense of humor. That's fantastic.

Then you'll have no problem quoting the sections that say or show that stats represent luck, chance, god blessings overriding the real low score, etc. If you're going to act like that, you need to be able to back it up.

 

[Hussar]

They are born with an 18. They are not born with the 20+ that Olympians have.

Wrong game. You can't have 20+ in 5e. Not without magic and extremely rare magic at that.

 

[Hussar]

The flat numbers are not the stats for the general population of anything. They are simply the average numbers for the stat range of that creature, or do you think that all humans outside of PCs are stuck with straight 10's?

In most of the game's history, humans outside of PC's HAD NO STATS AT ALL. 3e is the outlier here in giving everyone 6 stats. There was absolutely nothing indicating that 3-18 was the bell curve of a population.

Further, page 89 of the DMG says that you don't need to roll stats for NPCs. Not you don't roll stats, or you can't roll stats, or their stats are stuck at 10, but simply that you don't need to roll them and can just pick the abilities that are above or below average. That line confirms that the flat 10's are merely an average and not the stats for the general population.

So, because we don't need to roll for stats for NPC's, we should presume that all NPC's are generated randomly on a 3-18 bell curve? That's your argument?

Sorry, no, you're pulling stuff out of context. We don't need to roll for stats for NPC's because NPC's HAVE NO STATS until such time as they are needed in the game.

 

[Hussar]

And, let's just look at the 3d6 bell curve for a second. That gives a nice, gentle bell curve. But, populations don't look like that. Probably something like 90% of the population would be between 8 and 12. And you certainly wouldn't have 3% of your population with an 18 or a 3. That's ridiculous. The reason we baseline at 10 is because that covers about 90% of the population.

The remaining 10% can pretty safely be ignored. But the notion that a given population should follow a 3d6 bell curve is not supported anywhere in the game. Yes, the range is 3-18, fair enough. But, that does not, in any way, presume a smooth distribution through the range.

And, let's not forget, [MENTION=6799649]Arial Black[/MENTION], while you're claiming that all sorts of concepts are available if we die roll, it's not actually true. The "I trained like crazy and now I'm an Olympic level athlete" isn't actually available to a character that starts with a 19 or 20 stat, which, your method easily allows for. That character didn't train at all. After all, isn't the claim that die rolling follows natural talent?

Which means all your olympic athletes are actually just born that way. They could sit around eating donuts and playing Xbox all day long and they'd still have an olympic level physique.

 

[Maxperson]

Wrong game. You can't have 20+ in 5e. Not without magic and extremely rare magic at that.

So 20 is part of 20+ and you can have that a freaking 1st levell, and the bolded part allows for higher than 20, so right game man. It's kinda sad when you call me wrong and then prove me right in the very next sentence.

In most of the game's history, humans outside of PC's HAD NO STATS AT ALL. 3e is the outlier here in giving everyone 6 stats. There was absolutely nothing indicating that 3-18 was the bell curve of a population.

Um, 1st edition had you roll NPC stats according to the PHB and then add bonuses according to the NPC rules on page 100. You can also find commoners with stats in many, if not most modules. 2e was no different. 3e followed suit. 4e was the real outlier, but even that edition told the DM he could roll the stats if he wanted to. 5e goes back to the roots of the game. If you're going to react so strongly, at least know what you are talking about.

 

[Maxperson]

And, let's just look at the 3d6 bell curve for a second. That gives a nice, gentle bell curve. But, populations don't look like that. Probably something like 90% of the population would be between 8 and 12. And you certainly wouldn't have 3% of your population with an 18 or a 3. That's ridiculous. The reason we baseline at 10 is because that covers about 90% of the population.

Utterly false. I'm going to go with the 90% number, just cause. That 90% would be stats, not people. 90% of the stats would be between 8 and 12. That means that given 12 stats between two people, half the population will have a stat higher or lower than that range. Actually, given what stats in D&D represent, the percentage of stats outside that range is higher than 10% in the population here on earth.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In most of the game's history, humans outside of PC's HAD NO STATS AT ALL.

They might have condensed or MM style stats rather than full PC stats, but, sure, the majority of largely hypothetical humans populating the world wouldn't be stated out, at all, in any edition...

3e is the outlier here in giving everyone 6 stats. There was absolutely nothing indicating that 3-18 was the bell curve of a population.

I think the 1e DMG came right out and said just that.

Utterly false. I'm going to go with the 90% number, just cause. That 90% would be stats, not people. 90% of the stats would be between 8 and 12. That means that given 12 stats between two people, half the population will have a stat higher or lower than that range.

Yeah, that's the same point he was making, but worse.

So 20 is part of 20+

Nice save.

Um, 1st edition had you roll NPC stats according to the PHB and then add bonuses according to the NPC rules on page 100.

That was an option. There were also entries for humans (and the other PC races) in the MM that didn't get stats. :shrug:

But the 1e DMG is also where the old 'bell curve' discussion was, so that's a clear example of the game using 3d6 as a model of the population.

3e followed suit. 4e was the real outlier

Both gave all 6 stats to prettymuch everything in the MM, and to NPCs that had that kind of stat block, of course. 4e was closer to 1e than 3e or 5e have been in the degree to which it made monsters, NPCs and PCs /different/ in fundamental game-mechanics ways. 3e was the outlier, there, with not only PCs but monsters prettymuch buildable with all the same rules & options as PCs (and a few more besides).

but even that edition told the DM he could roll the stats if he wanted to. 5e goes back to the roots of the game.

And tells you that you can rolls stats for NPCs if you want to.

 

[Arial Black]

And, let's just look at the 3d6 bell curve for a second. That gives a nice, gentle bell curve. But, populations don't look like that. Probably something like 90% of the population would be between 8 and 12. And you certainly wouldn't have 3% of your population with an 18 or a 3. That's ridiculous. The reason we baseline at 10 is because that covers about 90% of the population.

It's the other way around; it's not that 'the strongest guy in the village/town/country/world' is defined as having 18 Str, but that 18 Str defines the strongest guy in every 216 people. You don't need to make any claims about 'Str 18 is Olympic level/strongest in the village/trained/not trained'. The claim is simply that, statistically', 1-in-216 people in the general population have 18 Str.

The remaining 10% can pretty safely be ignored. But the notion that a given population should follow a 3d6 bell curve is not supported anywhere in the game. Yes, the range is 3-18, fair enough. But, that does not, in any way, presume a smooth distribution through the range.

If we apply the same criteria for evidence to either case (and we must if we are to retain credibility) then we must compare the evidence for the claim that 'the general population is modeled by the 3d6 bell curve' against the claim that 'we know NPC stats range from 3-18, therefore they are nearly all exactly 10'.

To support the bell curve case we have the 1E DMG, the 'common ancestor' of every version of D&D from 2E onwards. We also have publications like The City State of the Invincible Overlord by The Judges Guild for D&D 1E, which lists (I kid you not) the entire population of the city(!) with stats rolled on 3d6 in order! Why? Because that's what the general population is! And they had the time to do it.

The reason that later editions had pre-rolled stat blocks for 'commoner' NPCs is not that the underlying assumption of the bell curve was dropped but that a.) the couldn't be bothered to roll tens of thousands of stat blocks, and b.) they realised that they didn't need to, because they can pre-create representative stat blocks that the DM can whip out at need.

And, let's not forget, [MENTION=6799649]Arial Black[/MENTION], while you're claiming that all sorts of concepts are available if we die roll, it's not actually true. The "I trained like crazy and now I'm an Olympic level athlete" isn't actually available to a character that starts with a 19 or 20 stat, which, your method easily allows for. That character didn't train at all. After all, isn't the claim that die rolling follows natural talent?

It is a ridiculous to claim that 1st level NPCs have zero training when they already attained their 1st level class features! Along with backgrounds, this demonstrates that 1st level PCs combine some training alongside their natural abilities. This doesn't mean that they can't train even more. The 1st level PC with zero XPs is a snapshot in time of the life of that person; before that point they were less trained, after that point they will be more trained.

Which means all your olympic athletes are actually just born that way. They could sit around eating donuts and playing Xbox all day long and they'd still have an olympic level physique.

Which just demonstrates the maxim: Garbage In, Garbage Out. If you start with false assumptions (1st level PCs have had no training) then it's no surprise that you reach a false conclusion (Olympic athletes were born with exactly the same abilities as they have when they compete, so baby high jumpers can jump just as high as their adult selves will be able to jump in the future).

 

[Oofta]

It's the other way around; it's not that 'the strongest guy in the village/town/country/world' is defined as having 18 Str, but that 18 Str defines the strongest guy in every 216 people. You don't need to make any claims about 'Str 18 is Olympic level/strongest in the village/trained/not trained'. The claim is simply that, statistically', 1-in-216 people in the general population have 18 Str.

According to the PHB, an 18 strength means you can "Push Drag or Lift" 540 pounds. PHB page 173 says: "A score of 18 is the highest that a person usually reaches." It doesn't say anything about "every 216 people". By your definition, every 216 (adults) would also have the weakest/most sickly/clumsiest/dumbest/unwisest/ugliest person possible.

But I still don't see what a sentence in a book published nearly 40 years ago has to do with today's D&D.

 

[Maxperson]

According to the PHB, an 18 strength means you can "Push Drag or Lift" 540 pounds.

That's just dumb. A person can push more than he can lift, and drag more than he can push. Someone who could lift 500 could drag more than twice that. They got lazy with 5e strength and just mushed it all together, so you can't look at their laziness and compare it to real world Olympians and expect it to match up.

PHB page 173 says: "A score of 18 is the highest that a person usually reaches." It doesn't say anything about "every 216 people".

It's simple math of dice rolling.

By your definition, every 216 (adults) would also have the weakest/most sickly/clumsiest/dumbest/unwisest/ugliest person possible.

Yep! In D&D this is true with a 3d6 rolling method. It becomes untrue if you use 4d6. That's why I prefer 4d6 over 3d6. 4d6 models real life better than 3d6 does. Real world stats are far more likely to exceed average by a great degree than to be at the bottom. It's harder to roll a final stat of 3-6 than it it is to roll a 15-18.