D&D 5E Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats

[Tony Vargas]

Which only serves to replicate one of the issues I have with point buy and array systems - you just can't get a really low stat (whether you want it or not )

Easy variant, though. Y'know how the cost in point-buy is variable. 1:1 from 11-13, then 2:1 for 14, etc? It's also -1:1 for 9 & 8. So, why not allow 7 or less scores, they just yield 0 build points. You can have a low score, if you want. Knock yourself out.

 

[Barolo]

This is only an anecdote, but following are the rolled stats from my last two tables (5 players each). There were no rerolls, no shenanigans, just straight 4D6k3. The stats are presented at the order rolled, but afterwards the players rearranged as they saw fit.

First set:
16 11 17 5 12 8
15 7 13 11 16 11
14 6 15 9 16 15
9 11 10 15 17 13
7 11 11 16 12 14

Second set:
13 14 10 14 9 15
13 12 13 13 15 8
16 7 16 9 11 17
8 15 14 14 13 6
11 15 13 8 12 14

The first set average was 12.1, slightly better than standard array. The actual totals ranged from 69 to 75.

The second set average was 12.2666, and totals ranged from 70 to 76.

I would say this is not what usually happens, as I have seen on older games at my table a PC built with scores such as 14 12 12 10 10 10 (no negatives, but quite dull lowish distribution), playing alongside a powerhouse 10 16 15 16 13 12 PC. But, in game, it worked out just fine.

We have let someone reroll on other, more dreadful cases, such as a guy who rolled a best 13 and the sum of modifiers from all scores was 0. He didn't complain or ask to reroll, but I told him to dump it and roll again as I would not be excited to play those scores were I the player. And I had this friend who rerolled a 12 10 4 17 14 15 because he could not withstand the 4 in his sheet. No problem, his second set got a slightly lower total, but the minimum was a 6, to which he was okay. I found it funny, because I would love to use his original set with the 4, as it also had some nice strengths.

There is, sure, a chance that scores will me more spread, and differences between PCs are more pronounced, but frankly, in all my years playing, that hasn't happened often enough to become a problem. Rolling 17s is already quite rare, and even a single 18 is so special that everybody gets excited when one player has it. Conversely, very low stats rolling 4D6k3 is difficult to happen. Even the sets with lower average than the standard array usually have one or two nice higher numbers, which suffices to make effective PCs. This has been my experience for decades already. I have seen people sharing that where they play there were all those 18+ str fighters back in AD&D. For us around here, they were really rare and memorable, and I don't even remember someone rolling a 18/00.

But, as I stated, this is all anecdotal.

 

[Lanliss]

I have not been involved with the rest of the thread, but my favorite idea of this battle is a rolled Array. One person, most likely the DM but it can be someone else if the DM has rotten luck with dice, rolls an array with 4d6 drop lowest. That is the set of ability scores everyone gets, and they get to place them as they please.

Random and fair at the same time.

 

[Jacob Marley]

What really surprised me was how little difference there was between the stat averages of characters who died fairly soon (say, a career of <5 adventures) and characters who lasted a long time (10 or more adventures); which told me (somewhat unexpectedly) that starting stats are a quite poor predictor of projected career length. There was also quite a wide variance within both the die-quicks and the long-termers, again telling me that the importance of starting stats is perhaps overrated.

Indeed. I've noticed something similar with my players. What I've observed is that their confidence changes as they transition from characters with low stats to characters with high stats. When they play low stat characters, they tend to be much more cautious and conservative, advancing slowly, and taking fewer risks. Whereas when they play higher-stated characters they much more likely to throw caution to the wind. What I've come to understand is that whatever differences in survivability that exist due to ability scores are more than offset by increased risk-taking on the part of my players. Ironically, this means characters with lower ability scores tend to have a better survival rate than characters with higher ability scores. Isn't player psychology fun? YMMV, etc.

 

[Oofta]

Indeed. I've noticed something similar with my players. What I've observed is that their confidence changes as they transition from characters with low stats to characters with high stats. When they play low stat characters, they tend to be much more cautious and conservative, advancing slowly, and taking fewer risks. Whereas when they play higher-stated characters they much more likely to throw caution to the wind. What I've come to understand is that whatever differences in survivability that exist due to ability scores are more than offset by increased risk-taking on the part of my players. Ironically, this means characters with lower ability scores tend to have a better survival rate than characters with higher ability scores. Isn't player psychology fun? YMMV, etc.

That makes a lot of sense.

But in any case, I don't see how anecdotal evidence of survival rates really makes much of a difference.

 

[Maxperson]

Sigh. We have this conversation every time this comes up.

I misspoke. I don't have a problem playing Bob the Janitor. I have a problem playing Bob the Janitor with a high of 14 as a stat and a couple of 6s, while on the same team Super Dave starts with a couple of 20s and nothing lower than a 14. For that matter, I wouldn't want to play Super Dave either, since there would be less of a feeling of growth.

So for me there's no feeling of character growth just because stats go up. So I get a plus or two more. Big deal. Levels, character abilities, and most importantly, character story/background growth are where it's at.

But of course, I'm just a power-hungry noob who doesn't know the one true way (tm) of playing D&D. Obviously you win D&D and I'm just a lozer for not wanting random stats. My bad.

It is your bad. It's extremely bad of you to think that there is one true way to play D&D. Give up on that idea and it won't bug you so much that you don't know it. Set yourself free!

 

[Oofta]

It is your bad. It's extremely bad of you to think that there is one true way to play D&D. Give up on that idea and it won't bug you so much that you don't know it. Set yourself free!

Have I ever said that point buy is the one true way? That I think less of people that use rolled stats? That I would think less of a person if they refused to play in a game where point buy was the only option? That the only way to have a "good" characters was to use point buy? That if you were a better role player, you would use point buy and be happy with the results? Other than a tongue-in-cheek acronym that I will not use in the future?

Please let me know. Because I've absolutely been bashed because I don't like random stat creation.

 

[ccs]

We simply disagree. In the last game we used point buy, my wife's rolls sucked. Another gal's rolls were a statistical anomaly high. Neither was happy with the character they were forced to play because the numbers for my wife did not allow her to build the hero she envisioned and the other gal was uncomfortable being so much more powerful out of the box.

??

I'm thinking they used Point Buy wrong somehow....

 

[Maxperson]

Please let me know. Because I've absolutely been bashed because I don't like random stat creation.

Not by me you haven't, so there was no cause for to throw "one true way" into my teeth the way you did. I just tossed it back at you in a humorous manner is all.

 

[Tony Vargas]

...don't know what I was thinking...