D&D 5E Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats

[Tony Vargas]

Just to be clear, it's only more desirable to you and what you think is "realistic".

To be clear, I prefer point-buy, and think realism concerns are misplaced in an FRPG, but that doesnt keep me from acknowledging the factors that lend appeal to random generation.

I think it's realistic that people wouldn't be adventurers if they weren't reasonably well suited to their goal

Sure, and 4d6 and the like represent that.

On the other hand I think random results are about as unfair as you can get.

The process, however, assuming everyone sticks to it, is perfectly fair. Everyone has the same chance of a superior character, and same risk of an inferior one.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I have used roll your own in every game of every edition until now.

What, even tightly-balanced 4e?

With 5e, I've only used standard array.. it is set up for the non-rolling it seems

Yet it defaults to random generation.

5e has a lot of little quirks of presentation, that way.

 

[Oofta]

The process, however, assuming everyone sticks to it, is perfectly fair. Everyone has the same chance of a superior character, and same risk of an inferior one.

Debating semantics doesn't really get anywhere. IMHO the result is not fair, which is what matters.

If a job advertised an average wage of $10.50/hour and you went in only to find that you had to roll 3d6 to determine your salary would the result be fair? If you rolled a 3 and had to work next to someone with exactly the same experience and job who rolled an 18 and you had to work that job for the next year?

EDIT: and of course the standard caveat that some people like the randomness, and there's nothing wrong with that and so on and so forth.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Fairness, especially in the context of a game, is not about results. You play a game, one of you wins, the others lose, the results aren't equal, the game may still be fair.

Fair is a lower bar than balanced, and RPGS, IMHO, in particular can do with clearing the higher bar.

But random generation is fair in principle, even if the results may be imbalanced. And to be fair, not nearly all D&Ders want the game balanced, anyway...

 

[FrogReaver]

Can I just say that I prefer how 1e handled stats. I never played 1e but I love the amount of thought they put into how stats were handled. I could care less for the fidly tables but its the general principle they used where all stats in the "average" range performed nearly the same in the mechanical sense. It was only the exceptional ones that got major bonuses. 1e also kept you out of classes that your stats would be totally inept for. Those two principles alone could lead to a very balanced game. It actually gives you a nice "normal" to balance around while still allowing for the "exceptional".

Linear stat scaling has done away with all that. Now you can't ever be a good GreatWeapon fighter if you keep a 13 str your whole career. It's just not possible. No matter what your concept says, to be a good fighter you must be super strong. You can't just be stronger than average (as a 13 would indicate). Instead you have to be super strong. You can't just be skilled at fighting well and be slightly above average strength. Instead you must be super strong and skilled at fighting well.

I think this discussion is missing the most important points. Character concept should be about your class first and foremost. Stats should help you describe a particular fighter or a particular wizard or a particular rogue but as long as a minimum stat threshold is reached those classes should perform nearly the same at least until the exceptional threshold is reached.

Modern games linear stat bonus system may make stats more important than class when it comes to function. For example. A 20 str Wizard at level 5 can probably outfight a 13 strength fighter at level 5 even though the fighter gets extra attack and has better weapon choices. That's absurd IMO.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Can I just say that I prefer how 1e handled stats

Yes!

. I never played 1e but

Though that does undermine the sentiment a tad.

1e also kept you out of classes that your stats would be totally inept for. Those two principles alone could lead to a very balanced game. It actually gives you a nice "normal" to balance around while still allowing for the "exceptional".

So, by 'balanced' you mean that some characters will be far better than others...

Linear stat scaling has done away with all that. Now you can't ever be a good GreatWeapon fighter if you keep a 13 str your whole career. It's just not possible. No matter what your concept says, to be a good fighter you must be super strong.

Y'know, you may be thinking of 0D&D or some version of Basic..., 1e AD&D had 'exceptional' % strength as a feature of the fighter and it's sub-classes, so an 18 STR was almost obligatory to be a worthy fighter. Things that mitigated against that included magic items that replaced rather than added to your STR, and, well not much else, really, Specialization, DMs who didn't allow STR bows...

You can't just be stronger than average (as a 13 would indicate). Instead you have to be super strong. You can't just be skilled at fighting well and be slightly above average strength. Instead you must be super strong and skilled at fighting well.

In 1e, yes, you did, though a Girdle of Giant Strength could take care of that for you.

In 5e you can pretty seamlessly emphasize DEX, instead.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes! Though that does undermine the sentiment a tad.


So, by 'balanced' you mean that some characters will be far better than others...

Y'know, you may be thinking of 0D&D or some version of Basic..., 1e AD&D had 'exceptional' % strength as a feature of the fighter and it's sub-classes, so an 18 STR was almost obligatory to be a worthy fighter. Things that mitigated against that included magic items that replaced rather than added to your STR, and, well not much else, really, Specialization, DMs who didn't allow STR bows...

In 1e, yes, you did, though a Girdle of Giant Strength could take care of that for you.

In 5e you can pretty seamlessly emphasize DEX, instead.

The version with the %str with a high str roll is the one I am talking about. I have no idea how magic items worked in that edition so I can't comment there.

But the basic premise that you could balance the game around the "normal" range without the %str and still have the %str be in the game as an added "your lucky" bonus doesn't really change. That as long as the game is balanced around the normal then any fighter from slightly above average strength to strong is going to perform about the same. It's only the really exceptionally strong that are a meaningful cut above.

I don't know where the dex comment came from as it has absolutely zilch to do with what I'm saying. Yes you can make a str or dex fighter in 5e. Envisioning a system where stats in the normal range don't really change your potential at a class is totally orthagnol to whether you can have str or dex fighters. You can have both str and dex fighters and a stat system like that.

 

[kalil]

I like rolling for stats as it both opens crazy MAD characters and terrible PC, both of which can be a lot of fun. It is imperative that your players are 100% on board with this. If you have even the slightest suspicion that any player would cheat they are not on board and you should not use rolled stats with your group.

My normal rule: You get on set of rolled stats. If you don't like them (for whatever reason) you can use the standard array instead.

 

[Arial Black]

The version with the %str with a high str roll is the one I am talking about. I have no idea how magic items worked in that edition so I can't comment there.

But the basic premise that you could balance the game around the "normal" range without the %str and still have the %str be in the game as an added "your lucky" bonus doesn't really change. That as long as the game is balanced around the normal then any fighter from slightly above average strength to strong is going to perform about the same. It's only the really exceptionally strong that are a meaningful cut above.

I don't know where the dex comment came from as it has absolutely zilch to do with what I'm saying. Yes you can make a str or dex fighter in 5e. Envisioning a system where stats in the normal range don't really change your potential at a class is totally orthagnol to whether you can have str or dex fighters. You can have both str and dex fighters and a stat system like that.

I was brought up on 1E, and the situation you describe, where stats less than 15 gave you no mechanical benefits, did not result in a sea of PCs with stats around 14 with the occasional 15! Oh, no, no, no!

What happened was that every player wanted those juicy mechanical bonuses! And so they skewed their rolling systems or just outright lied, so that their PCs had some damn bonuses! If you didn't have any bonuses, what's the point of stats? Any PC rolled without bonuses got thrown in the bin and a new set was rolled until you got some.

The advantage of the linear bonus thing is that every stat has a bonus associated with it (well, modifier). You don't feel the need to throw away a PC who has six 14s. In 1E, six 14s was a totally useless PC, no better than six 7s. In 5E, six 14s would be cheating-style good!

The stats thing has changed for the better.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The version with the %str with a high str roll is the one I am talking about. I have no idea how magic items worked in that edition so I can't comment there.

There were a couple of items that just gave you an 18/00 or higher STR, so they were a way for a lower-STR fighter to catch up.

But the basic premise that you could balance the game around the "normal" range without the %str and still have the %str be in the game as an added "your lucky" bonus doesn't really change.

The game wasn't 'balanced,' in that sense, at all. That one fighter could hit the ground at 1hp, +0 to hit, and 2-8 damage, and another at 14hp, +4 to hit, and 11-26 damage (and an extra attack every-other round) does not exactly paint a picture of 'balance.'

That as long as the game is balanced around the normal...

It never has been, even when it arguably did balance, at all. Adventures being at least a bit exceptional, for one thing.

I don't know where the dex comment came from as it has absolutely zilch to do with what I'm saying. Yes you can make a str or dex fighter in 5e. .

Its an example of a fighter not 'needing' a high STR. It's actually kinda spiffy, too since 5e's the first ed that doesn't resort to any convolutions - variants, feats, new classes - to open that choice up..