D&D 5E Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats

Sadras said:

I don't really want to have to compare 5e to 1e and say, well done WotC for not doing it as bad as 1e
I'd rather we look at 2e and D&D basic and see how odd numbers still counted in the form of rolling under for proficiencies.

Click to expand...

Mods weren't any different in 1e & 2e, and roll-under was, frankly, a terrible resolution method. So, "well done, WotC, for not doing it as bad as TSR," no matter how faint that praise may be.
;P

I hear you, but that doesn't happen at my table. Ppl here go for the 10, 12, 14 etc.
I'm working on 'fixing' my issue with this.

Click to expand...

I think the point of both our quotes was that, even if they're 'stuck' with an odd stat at chargen, players they can 'even it up,' fairly readily - so supporting your point that odd numbers don't happen all that much.

One fix is to find some fiddly thing for odd stats to do. Another is to drop the pretense of 3-18 stats, and just use the mods, straight up. So PC stats would range from -1 to +5, rather than 8 to 20.

Tony Vargas said:

One fix is to find some fiddly thing for odd stats to do. Another is to drop the pretense of 3-18 stats, and just use the mods, straight up. So PC stats would range from -1 to +5, rather than 8 to 20.

Click to expand...

Tony Vargas said:

... roll-under was, frankly, a terrible resolution method.

Click to expand...

What makes you say that? It's always seemed an elegant enough mechanic...easy to use, easy to grok, and easy for a DM to modify to account for ease/difficulty of the specific situation.

And, it made every stat point relevant...which matters in a system where in most other ways only even numbers make a difference.

What killed it was 3e where stats well into the 20s seemed relatively commonplace.

One fix is to find some fiddly thing for odd stats to do. Another is to drop the pretense of 3-18 stats, and just use the mods, straight up. So PC stats would range from -1 to +5, rather than 8 to 20.

Click to expand...

Assuming one uses point-buy or array only. The real range is actually -4 to +5.

[MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] - one easy fix for strength might be to give the to-hit bonus on even stats and the damage bonus on odd stats - thus 14 = +2/+2, 15 = +2/+3, 16 = +3/+3, etc. Not sure how many other stats have anyhting as easily splittable, though.

Lanefan

Lanefan said:

What makes you say that? It's always seemed an elegant enough mechanic...easy to use, easy to grok, and easy for a DM to modify to account for ease/difficulty of the specific situation.

Click to expand...

I don't know where to begin, there's so much so wrong with it. It was painfully un-intuitive to roll that d20 wanting high in some cases and low in others. It under-valued level and over-valued stats. It had no sensible provision for varying difficulties -
needing to make it 'by so many' notwithstanding. And it crumbled when STR came into it, being unable to handle % scores well, not to mention giant strength.

The best variation of it I ever could come up with, which I use when I run 1e Gamma World, is roll high without going over. So if you roll a 17 when your stat is 18, you did really well, and can 'hit' a higher difficulty task, while if you roll a 17 when your stat is 10, you screwed up.

What killed it was 3e where stats well into the 20s seemed relatively commonplace.

Click to expand...

Not that ranks were a whole lot better... well, actually, they were a whole lot better.

Assuming one uses point-buy or array only.

Click to expand...

That was the assumption, yes, 'viable' PCs. The top of the range is hard-capped, corresponding to 20. The bottom could go lower for stats under 8.

[MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] - one easy fix for strength might be to give the to-hit bonus on even stats and the damage bonus on odd stats - thus 14 = +2/+2, 15 = +2/+3, 16 = +3/+3, etc. Not sure how many other stats have anyhting as easily splittable, though.

Click to expand...

Clearly it could work for DEX.

For skills & saves you could receive the 'round up' when you're proficient (or non-proficient, depending on what you wanted to reward). For skills & tools you could pick one 'specialty' either one skill or tool proficiency, or one specific thing you're particularly good at with each, that'd get the round-up.

Lanefan said:

What makes you say that? It's always seemed an elegant enough mechanic...easy to use, easy to grok, and easy for a DM to modify to account for ease/difficulty of the specific situation.

And, it made every stat point relevant...which matters in a system where in most other ways only even numbers make a difference.

Click to expand...

Yup, pretty much this. Apparently its easier to crap on older systems (because they are not current). 5e for now is the golden child until 6e comes out, then people will feel more comfortable crapping on 5e and join @CapnZapp

@Sadras - one easy fix for strength might be to give the to-hit bonus on even stats and the damage bonus on odd stats - thus 14 = +2/+2, 15 = +2/+3, 16 = +3/+3, etc. Not sure how many other stats have anyhting as easily splittable, though.

Click to expand...

Yes this can be done with all the other abilities - my preferred solution is to integrate Skills and Powers subabilties into 5e.

Tony Vargas said:

The best variation of it I ever could come up with, which I use when I run 1e Gamma World, is roll high without going over. So if you roll a 17 when your stat is 18, you did really well, and can 'hit' a higher difficulty task, while if you roll a 17 when your stat is 10, you screwed up.

Click to expand...

I thought this was the norm? This is definitely what our table used.

Sadras said:

Yup, pretty much this. Apparently its easier to crap on older systems (because they are not current).

Click to expand...

There are apologists who tend that way, and grognards who tend to the reverse. Then there are those who just love and/or hate one specific edition.

I find things worthy of brutal criticism in each & every edition.

Sadras said:

I thought this was the norm? This is definitely what our table used.

Click to expand...

Don't remember where it came from, it certainly wasn't anything I saw used at a D&D table, but then these things varied wildly, and I didn't /play/ much in the 90s, just DM'd, so I was wrapped in my own variants.

Tony Vargas said:

I don't know where to begin, there's so much so wrong with it. It was painfully intuitive to roll that d20 wanting high in some cases and low in others.

Click to expand...

I have no sympathy for someone who can't handle needing high sometimes and low others.

Pleasant (though I hope rarely seen) side effect: puts a crimp in the style of anyone who brings "interesting" dice to the table.

It under-valued level and over-valued stats. It had no sensible provision for varying difficulties - needing to make it 'by so many' notwithstanding.

Click to expand...

Fractions. Roll under 3/4. Roll under half. Roll under whatever fraction. This keeps the low-high score separation in play (in ratio) but varies the difficulty.

As for undervaluing level: in many cases this is just fine as what's being rolled for should in theory have no link to level at all. A 1st-level PC and a 15th-level PC with the same stats should realistically face exactly the same difficulty balancing on a log to cross a raging river or trying to remember a piece of local historic minutae, for example.

And it crumbled when STR came into it, being unable to handle % scores well, not to mention giant strength.

Click to expand...

True, though one could always just say a natural 20 always fails and have done with it.

What we did a very long time ago, to allow for Cavalier-like percentile increments to work with all stats and classes, was split out the 1e percentile strength increments into their own whole numbers....thus 18.41 became 19, 18.71 became 20, etc. until 18.00 became 24, with the old 19 becoming 25.

EDIT TO ADD: That said, roll-under strength checks don't come up very often as strength-based endeavours can often be handled by the "bend bars-lift gates" d% roll instead...where, perhaps fittingly, you also wanted to roll low.

The best variation of it I ever could come up with, which I use when I run 1e Gamma World, is roll high without going over. So if you roll a 17 when your stat is 18, you did really well, and can 'hit' a higher difficulty task, while if you roll a 17 when your stat is 10, you screwed up.

Click to expand...

Isn't it just easier and simpler to say the lower you roll the better in these cases?

Lanefan

Lanefan said:

I have no sympathy for someone who can't handle needing high sometimes and low others.

Click to expand...

All I can say is that I taught quite a few people how to play back in the day and they get "roll D20, add a number, higher is better" much faster than the upside down and negative math we used before 3.0 came out.

Not everyone likes the additional complexity. And yes, we all know you don't think it was complex and it probably isn't for you. It is for many, if not most, people.

I didn't mind it, but it was a bit of mental math overhead I can do without.

Lanefan said:

Pleasant (though I hope rarely seen) side effect: puts a crimp in the style of anyone who brings "interesting" dice to the table.

Click to expand...

Nah. Just use different dice.

Lanefan said:

I have no sympathy for someone who can't handle needing high sometimes and low others.

Click to expand...

Noted.

Fractions. Roll under 3/4. Roll under half. Roll under whatever fraction. This keeps the low-high score separation in play (in ratio) but varies the difficulty.

Click to expand...

Ugh.

As for undervaluing level: in many cases this is just fine as what's being rolled for should in theory have no link to level at all. A 1st-level PC and a 15th-level PC with the same stats should realistically face exactly the same difficulty balancing on a log to cross a raging river or trying to remember a piece of local historic minutae, for example.

Click to expand...

This was a big one for me. A lot of stuff scales with level. Your hps, attack rolls, and saves, most notably. But also some of 1e's other quixotic sub-systems, like detecting an invisible creature or noticing you were just pick-pocketed.

It just never made sense for a seasoned adventurer to get tougher and tougher, better and better at fighting (even if he did nothing his whole career but stand in the back and cast) but stay clutzy or naive or oblivious.

That said, roll-under strength checks don't come up very often as strength-based endeavours can often be handled by the "bend bars-lift gates" d% roll instead...

Click to expand...

That was another bad thing about the roll-under system, it often gave you a much easier roll than some corresponding 'special' ability. Bend bars/lift games is an example. Sneaking past something with a roll under DEX for a 17 DEX low-level thief, for another.

And, of course, it just added to the perennial problem of TSR era D&D, unnecessarily baroque resolution systems.

d20's standardization on d20 + bonuses vs DC was a huge improvement.

Isn't it just easier and simpler to say the lower you roll the better in these cases?

Click to expand...

It's simpler to say that. But, roll-high-without-going-over makes it easier to handle comparative success and varying difficulty. Say you have several characters vying to do something that you rule is a DEX check. Those who roll over fail, those who roll under subtract the result of the die from their score to figure out how much they 'made it by.' If you're rolling high w/o going over those who don't roll over just compare results, highest wins.

But either way, it's just awful compared to the d20 core mechanic, which is not exactly outstanding, itself.