D&D 5E Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats

[Tony Vargas]

You're basing your entire argument on the Appeal to Tradition fallacy.

Is it still a fallacy when the goal of the subject in question is to evoke tradition?

 

[Caliban]

Is it still a fallacy when the goal of the subject in question is to evoke tradition?

Unless they reprint the relevant text in the new books, yes it is.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using EN World mobile app

 

[Tony Vargas]

* another consequence of the bell curve is that all creatures are not created equal! Any method that makes all PCs equal not only takes away the vast majority of valid concepts but also has sacrificed realism on the alter of game balance.

It's not that anyone's preference is a problem, it's that some claims made about a particular method are demonstrably not true.

There's certainly been a lot of that, and you've strayed into it, yourself, above.

There's a sense of realism to be had in random generation - it's undermined by arranging stats, choosing race, &c, but it's available for those who really want to go there, that's quite true. And it's certainly not in the nature of the game that all /creatures/ are equal in any sense, PCs, for instance, are a cut above the assumed PC-race populations, and, may well not be as gifted as the occasional legendary uber-villain who takes them all on by himself.
But, is it really wildly unrealistic that a party of adventurers, having gone through whatever winnowing process gets you to first level, and deciding to band together band become peers in whatever quest they first undertake, have similar degree's of talent as well as competence in their respective fields? I don't think so. But that's a fairly subtle point about 'realism,' which is not something I much value.

What I do value, though, is being able to do a build-to-concept, and that's where you really cross the line. No, the vast majority of valid concepts do not require overall stat disparities among the PCs. Individual stat differences should be able to cover it. The concept that just calls for extraordinary strength can have extraordinary strength, by maxxing out that stat, the concept that calls for strength, and intelligence, and charisma will not match that same level of strength - in that way, both concepts are realized.
You dismiss that as 'balance preference,' but balance is critical to letting everyone play what they want.

(Edit: And, while I realize the title of the thread is random vs buy, I think array also deserves consideration, and it's Standard Array, not point-buy, that delivers best on the balance priority - though the fact that the stats, themselves, simply aren't balanced is an issue).

You're also implying that random generation will better deliver on 'play what you want' because it sometimes delivers huge disparities among PCs. But, it does so randomly. If what you want it to play the low-stat underdog, and you roll huge, you're not playing what you want. If what you want is to play the ubermench, and your dice go cold, you can't play what you want.
Ultimately, random-roll-and-arrange is exactly as open to playing what you want as standard array, because both allow you the same degree of freedom in customizing your character: arranging stats. That's it.

Tautologically, of course, the advantage of random generation is that it's random. So you can explore the RP potential of parties with big power disparities among them without any actual unfairness - everyone had the same chance to roll the ubermench. And, what I have to consider the biggest advantage, especially if you roll in order: the potential to inspire a character idea when you don't have a concept in mind, already - something point buy & array just can't do.


Just as a sort of summary, how each method has it's high and low points:


Balance (parity among PCs)
Array
Point-buy
Random

Build-to-concept/Optimization ("play what you want," /when/ you want)
Point-buy
Array
Random

'Realism'/Inspiration/immersions (degree of variation among characters)
Random (especially Roll-in-order, then randomly roll race, gender, social class, birth order, etc rather than roll-and-arrange)
Point-buy
Array

Fairness:
Random/Point-Buy/Array - they're all perfectly fair.

 

[Wiseblood]

Ive been DMing for many years now, and enjoy it very much. I just finished up Out of the Abyss, and it went great. However, it almost felt like we were "power gaming" by the end of the adventure path.

As I normally do with almost all my games, I allowed my players to roll their stats at the beginning of the game instead of using the point buy or standard array ability scores presented in the Players Handbook. However, during the course of the game, i often felt that i had to fluff monsters attacks, hit points, and damage just to keep up with the characters power surge.

Soon, i will be running the Tomb of Annihilation adventure path, and this time, i'm seriously thinking about mandating that players ONLY use the point buy or standard array methods of creating their characters ability scores.

I truly believe that rolling ability scores is more fun for players, and can create balanced characters with the "risk" of having a few bad stats...

...but, would you believe, that I've never seen a balanced character come to my table with rolled up ability scores? They all presented with above average stats for their characters with usually no bad stats, no negative anything, and at least an 18 score (or maybe two 18 scores) to start. Each and every player! This has even happened when the group is like at 5th level, and a character dies, and a player comes back with a new 5th level character with above average rolled up ability stats. You could say that this is "luck of the dice," but I'm thinking that's not the case...

You see, I want to trust my players. I don't want to accuse them of fudging/lying with their dice rolls, especially when it comes to ability stats. And i don't want to sit and watch them roll up their characters and police them. I'm not the kind of DM who micromanages players characters sheets. I generally trust that when they make their characters at home, they are rolling the dice honestly.

But no one has ever came with a character with like a rolled up ability score of an 8 or something like that. They've all presented with some pretty "lucky" dice rolls...each and every time with each and every character that they make.

One time, later in the game, my wizard wanted to poly-morph into a T-Rex but was disappointed because his strength score was too low. I had a druid who didn't like to shape shift because turning into a bear was sub-optimal compared to the other players with better stats!

So I'm just really thinking that this time, for the new campaign, to disallow rolling the stats.

Do you think this is too harsh?

Do you other DMs police your players?

How should this be handled?

Players do not come to the table with stats. They roll in front of me and everyone else.

3d6 drop the highest add 6 the range is 8 to 18 but to get the vaunted 18 you need to roll 18.

I am not certain that attributes are the problem though. It appears that 3 things are happening.

1) your players are cheating.
2) shape shifting in 5e is about flexibilty not raw power like 3e
3) higher level characters are powerful

 

[Oofta]

Is it still a fallacy when the goal of the subject in question is to evoke tradition?

When people say things like

some claims made about a particular method are demonstrably not true.

Then yes, it is a fallacy. You've decided to use a method from a different game as a basis for the argument. It doesn't matter if that game also happened to be labeled D&D.

There are many, many things in 5E that were implemented for the sake of tradition and it's one of the reasons I like the game. Rolling 3d6 for commoner ability scores is not one of those things the developers chose to carry over, much like the rules for creating magic items.

I may decide that I want to implement a version of sanity checks from a Cthulhu game. That doesn't mean that I'm going to start arguing that saving throws must work in a different fashion because I implement a house rule.

 

[Tony Vargas]

When people say things like



Then yes, it is a fallacy. You've decided to use a method from a different game as a basis for the argument. It doesn't matter if that game also happened to be labeled D&D.

First of all, I don't think the "demonstrably untrue" bits Arial was going on about were demonstrably untrue because of the EGGs old bell-curve discussion. (And I consider some of what she presents as unquestioned fact as demonstrably untrue - for instance, characterizing a collection of numbers as a 'valid concept,' it's not, it's a collection of numbers - there's nothing valid about straight 20s as a 'concept' it's just wanting to be the best at everything for the sake of the numbers, not the concept.)

There are many, many things in 5E that were implemented for the sake of tradition and it's one of the reasons I like the game. Rolling 3d6 for commoner ability scores is not one of those things the developers chose to carry over, much like the rules for creating magic items.

There actually are rules for creating magic items, they're vague and evoke the classic game. There aren't explicit rules for randomly generating NPC stats, but the DM's prerogative to do so is clearly left open, and, the game's past, which 5e is actively trying to evoke throughout its design, is there, suggesting little else beyond 3d6 as a place to start in doing so.

I may decide that I want to implement a version of sanity checks from a Cthulhu game. That doesn't mean that I'm going to start arguing that saving throws must work in a different fashion because I implement a house rule.

OTOH, I'll argue that saves must work differently because they way they work now doesn't evoke the way they worked in 1e!

 

[Oofta]

First of all, I don't think the "demonstrably untrue" bits Arial was going on about were demonstrably untrue because of the EGGs old bell-curve discussion. (And I consider some of what she presents as unquestioned fact as demonstrably untrue - for instance, characterizing a collection of numbers as a 'valid concept,' it's not, it's a collection of numbers - there's nothing valid about straight 20s as a 'concept' it's just wanting to be the best at everything for the sake of the numbers, not the concept.)

There actually are rules for creating magic items, they're vague and evoke the classic game. There aren't explicit rules for randomly generating NPC stats, but the DM's prerogative to do so is clearly left open, and, the game's past, which 5e is actively trying to evoke throughout its design, is there, suggesting little else beyond 3d6 as a place to start in doing so.

We have rules for what to do for NPC ability scores that are perfectly serviceable. It's being argued that since they're light on details, we should default to the rules for a different game (D&D 1E).

The rules for creating magic items are quite vague, so if I use the same logic then the "default" rules for creating magic items should come from 3.5 since they were more detailed and gave specifics on how the creation worked.

If people want to use rules from a different game, you won't get any argument from me. I occasionally reference other rule systems myself.

That doesn't mean that I use rules from a different system to justify any discussions about 5E.

In other words: Want to have randomized ability scores? Go for it. I prefer point buy. In addition I don't think rolling a few 6 sided dice is a good method for modeling the ability scores of the general population nor is such a method stated as the default in 5E.

 

[Tony Vargas]

We have rules for what to do for NPC ability scores that are perfectly serviceable. It's being argued that since they're light on details, we should default to the rules for a different game (D&D 1E).

Which just happens to be the game 5e tries so hard to emulate.

The rules for creating magic items are quite vague, so if I use the same logic then the "default" rules for creating magic items should come from 3.5 since they were more detailed and gave specifics on how the creation worked.

The same logic would be that they'd 'default' to 1e, and they're actually a bit like they were in 1e - vague & DM-driven.

I prefer point buy. In addition I don't think rolling a few 6 sided dice is a good method for modeling the ability scores of the general population nor is such a method stated as the default in 5E.

Not really in disagreement, there. Preferences are personal, the game's history (and the current ed's hearkening to it) just is.

 

[Lanefan]

Not a bad one, although I think I'd prefer it to be "replace lowest with a 4 if it's <4". Taking away someone's 18 because of your variant method would suck.

Averaage 12.5, about 3/4 of rolls between 11 and 15. Not bad.

Can't claim credit for this one - it's a retype of a [MENTION=6871450]Wulffolk[/MENTION] idea, so as to compare it to other methods for range and average.

Lanefan

 

[Oofta]

The same logic would be that they'd 'default' to 1e, and they're actually a bit like they were in 1e - vague & DM-driven.

The argument is that the last time we had detailed rules for generating ability scores for generic NPCs was 1E. Since it hasn't been superseded by any other rule, it is still the "default".

However, there were no rules for generating ability scores for NPCs in OD&D. The only option given is to generate PCs, not the general population.

Detailed rules for generating NPC ability scores were added in 1E.

Detailed rules for creating magic items were added in 3.5.

Therefore following the same logic, 3.5 magic item rules should be the "default".

If you're going to go old school, go all the way back to OD&D.