D&D 5E Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats

[Ilbranteloth]

But you still GOT a new spell slot. So if not flaming sphere then odds are another damage spell. On the other hand, a frontline fighter who rolls a few 1's for their early HP is severely hampered in doing their desired function. HP are a character resource. They shouldn't be randomly determined.

Actually, at least the way we play and which is RAW in AD&D, after the group of spells at 1st level, all of the spells you gained are ones you found. So no, it's not "odds are another damage spell." Unless you choose to wait until another damage spell.

As for what "should" be randomly determined? I think that's a decision made by the designers and/or the group. We prefer things that are outside of your control to be randomly determined. That includes stats, hit points, etc. You can choose to expend resources and training (feats) to gain more, but in terms of the base amount, that's the nature of the world.

And no, we haven't found low hit point fighters to be severely hampered. They generally go about their job a bit differently, but they still get the job done. A fighter with lower hit points might opt for heavier armor, a shield, and longer weapons, and use different tactics, that's all.

 

[Arial Black]

The first time I ever saw anything that locked in h.p. values was 3e's max-h.p.-at-1st-level rule, which we used at the time.

Low hit points are a much bigger disadvantage than high hit points are an advantage. High HP is not game-breaking, but low HP can be.

This is because, with hit points, there are only two conditions: 'dead' and 'not dead'. Assuming the DM has balanced the encounter to tax the party's resources but not kill them all, 'high HP' versus 'average HP' makes no difference because 'not dead' was what the DM was hoping for; the party still has to expend the same amount of healing to get their HPs back either way.

But 'average HP' versus 'low HP' means that 'not dead' can turn into 'dead' very easily, even if the DM is not looking to kill the PCs right now.

Because of this, we roll HP at each level but if the roll is less than half the hit die then we take half. High HP still possible, low HP avoided, fair to each PC, DMs avoid some unplanned TPKs. Everybody wins.

But yes, between similar stats, similar abilities/skills/etc. and similar h.p. these characters are starting to look a bit clone-ish. No wonder players are looking for more variety in race and class options - all the variety is being choked out of the options they already had.

One reason why I love multi-classing is that I get a lot more control about how my PC develops over time, and the exponentially larger number of character possibilities reduces 'clone' PCs drastically.

The same is true of feats.

 

[Arial Black]

All the more reason games should be...
..and balanced, too.

When playing chess, sure.

When playing an RPG where the whole point is to explore a realistic world, then since life is not fair, realistic worlds should not be fair either.

 

[Hriston]

the whole point is to explore a realistic world,

Others may agree with your premise, but I do not. That's just one reason people like to play RPGs. Other reasons include being competitive on a level playing field. I think the most anyone can say with any degree of certainty is the whole point is to have fun.

 

[Tony Vargas]

When playing chess, sure.

Fairness is critical in a competitive game. Balance is critical in a cooperative game (where all players are on the same 'side' or there is not win/lose condition, not 'cooperative' in the team sense, that's still team v team competition - just to be clear).

Fairness and balance would both be mere distractions from all-important accuracy in a simulation, though. Re-enactors doing the Alamo aren't going to modify the scenario so Santa Anna will have a fair chance of being beaten, or use build system to design the fortifications & defenders and the attackers on the same point total.

When playing an RPG where the whole point is to explore a realistic world

Then you're not actually playing a game anymore. You're running a simulation or engaging in tourism of the DM's imagination. You can use an RPG setting or even ruleset that way, and a system like 5e D&D, one that's designed to be extensively modded by the DM, can definitely be made to work like that more readily than many others, and, indeed, 5e is meant to be used in just that way (since some of us ran off and did that sort of thing back in the day, and 5e's not trying to exclude any styles as badwrongfun)...
... among many others.

So, while rolling is good for verisimilitude in being somewhat out of the player's control (more so if roll-in-order) and for realism in delivering potentially imbalanced results (ditto), it's less than ideal for a simulation in still being fair to each player. Now, if there were character types that simply rolled different (poorer) dice than others for realism (or genre fidelity) - halflings rolling 2d4+1 for STR, 'Heroes' 5d6k3 & arrange, side-kicks 3d6 in order, whatever - that'd be appropriately unfair, as well as imbalanced.

then since life is not fair, realistic worlds should not be fair either.

The imaginary world needn't be imagined as fair to it's imaginary inhabitants for the game to be fair - or even balanced - to the players. In fact, a goodly portion of unfairness & injustice would be almost required to generate some conflict for the PCs to deal with.

 

[Caliban]

When playing an RPG where the whole point is to explore a realistic world, then since life is not fair, realistic worlds should not be fair either.

This is laughably false, on many levels.

Even aside from trying to call a fantasy world with spells, magical creatures, non-human races, and an overabundance of gold and dungeons "realistic" - an RPG is a game.

The point is to have fun, to be challenged, and to spend time with your friends. That's it. Many people have additional goals, but the game doesn't impose them on you.

"Exploring a realistic world" isn't even on the list for most poeple. "Exploring a fantastic world" may be, but it's not even in the top 5 for a lot of people.

"Killing monsters and taking their stuff", or "Rescuing the prince(ss) and being a hero", or "playing a character who can do strange and unlikely (fun!) things" are far more likely to be the "whole point" - not being "realistic".

If you want to explore a realistic world - go hiking.

 

[Satyrn]

It sounds like things a player aren't smoother so much as your perception of the game is different, which allows you to be more relaxed about it. rougher/smoother to me has more to do with mechanical bumps and jolts.

Okay, I didn't use the word you would have. But you seem get what I'm saying, so that's cool.

As a DM, I haven't had to engage in those DM "fixes" some people describe. Maybe that's due to how I set up encounters, though. I don't care about stats or hit points. Instead, I look at a PC strengths and weaknesses due to class mechanics and match up monster abilities and weaknesses against those. It makes it much easier for me to plan easy, moderate, challenging and hard encounters that way.

I do that sometimes, too.

But I also have a strong indifference towards paying attention to what the characters actually can do. So I often can't tailor things like that, simply because don't know what to target, or I'd be targegting the same two strengths and weaknesses constantly.

I mean, I don't know what spells they know until they actually use them for example.

 

[Satyrn]

This is laughably false, on many levels.

Even aside from trying to call a fantasy world with spells, magical creatures, non-human races, and an overabundance of gold and dungeons "realistic" - an RPG is a game.

The point is to have fun, to be challenged, and to spend time with your friends. That's it. Many people have additional goals, but the game doesn't impose them on you.

"Exploring a realistic world" isn't even on the list for most poeple. "Exploring a fantastic world" may be, but it's not even in the top 5 for a lot of people.

"Killing monsters and taking their stuff", or "Rescuing the prince(ss) and being a hero", or "playing a character who can do strange and unlikely (fun!) things" are far more likely to be the "whole point" - not being "realistic".

If you want to explore a realistic world - go hiking.

Just not in a city park.

 

[Yardiff]

You took a poll to find out all these 'most people' your talking about? Or is this just your opinion? And going hiking is exploring the REAL world not a 'realistic' world.

 

[Caliban]

You took a poll to find out all these 'most people' your talking about? Or is this just your opinion? And going hiking is exploring the REAL world not a realistic world.

Of course not. Just like Arial Black, I have assumed that if it's true for me it's true for everyone, despite what anyone might say to the contrary.

Or alternately, I've been gaming for 25+ years and I remember what other people seem to enjoy about playing D&D. The main thing I've learned is that people play D&D for different reasons and in different ways. Most of them are equally valid. Rolled stats or point buy - equally valid. High magic or low magic - equally valid. Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms - equally valid. Grim'n'Gritty or High Fantasy - equally valid. (Chained up in my basement with shock collars to enforce good roleplay - apparently not a valid playstyle in the eyes of the law...)

Trying to impose your personal vision of "fun" on everyone else is simply hubris.