D&D 5E Array v 4d6: Punishment? Or overlooked data

[aramis erak]

Jumping onto a 6-month long thread I haven't finished reading...

I love random rolls because I like letting the dice inform my character, instead of bringing in a set concept and trying to get the mechanics to match it. That's just me and the kind of characters I like to play.

On the other hand, being 8 levels into a 5e game with random rolls, I'll say that it doesn't seem the best for this system. The feat mechanics don't work as well when a character starts with 18 or even 20 in their prime stat. Power level disparities can be irritating if players (human beings that they are) ever get into the competitive bs. Ultimately, I think the game plays best when starting with the power level set by the standard array.

So, yesterday, I "rolled" up a character for a new campaign. I started with 8 in every stat and rolled some d6. For each die, I bought an extra point for that stat. I repeated until I'd used up the 27 point buy. The result was a random array (no reordering allowed), but within the narrow power range of the standard array. Perfect!

The character ended up being totally different from a character I would have built from scratch. I can't wait for him to hit the table on Tuesday.

I implemented this as a javascript+html page.
http://aramis.hostman.us/dnd/RedrickRoller.html

Thanks for the idea! (I'll remove your handle from it if you want, but credit where it's due until otherwise told).

 

[redrick]

I implemented this as a javascript+html page.
http://aramis.hostman.us/dnd/RedrickRoller.html

Thanks for the idea! (I'll remove your handle from it if you want, but credit where it's due until otherwise told).

That's awesome! The results aren't as exciting as a true 3d6 array, because you're limited to a 7 point spread instead of a 15 point spread, but I think there is still a lot of room for variation especially if, like me, you don't believe in re-ordering your abilities once you roll them. I'll definitely be using your program once my poor little halfling fighter dies.

 

[Hussar]

This is an interesting statement. It assumes that all the characters of a party are always going to be the same level.

A base presumption for the last, what, fifteen years and three editions? Not really a big assumption.

It also assumes the DM is specifically crafting all encounters specifically for their level.

Not at all. But, the encounters have to be designed against some baseline. What it means is that the die rolled group is typically operating at a higher level than the point buy group.

It further assumes that the classes are balanced across level.

Again, a baseline assumption of 3e, 4e and now 5e. Not a big shocker there.

I think there are many reasons other then attributes that can cause one character to outshine others and play as if they were a level or two higher most important of those factors is the player. Not all players are equal and because of the variety of skill level we can see that I think would influence character power far more then attributes.

True. But, we can't control for that. If Player X is much higher skill level AND has a much higher point buy value character, he's going to dramatically outshine the other PC.

I find this a huge exaggeration and again just filled with assumptions. The first being that rolled characters cause balance issues. They can but they don't always. People do roll average characters using that system and in fact probably roll average more then not average.

This last bit I disagree with. "Average" die rolled characters are a lot less common than they should be because many tables allow fudging during chargen. "Die Rolled" as often as not, means "I roll until I get something I like"[/quote]

I don't understand this attitude. If rolling doesn't work for you that's great, don't use it. But the insistence that no one else use it because "all sorts of people jumping on En World complaining about how this or that edition sucks because they can't challenge the party." and cause all kinds of balance issues that I've personally never seen is ludicrous. Yes, I'm sure they happen to people as we have testimony to that here and elsewhere. But just because some people can't handle it doesn't mean it should go away for everyone.

You can use die rolls all you like. I don't really care. The point I'm making though is that die rolled characters are frequently the source of many of the balance issues in the game. A lot of the headaches of D&D go away when you don't use die rolls.

 

[Sacrosanct]

It's funny, I get comments about ascribing motives, yet [MENTION=26510]SAN[/MENTION]crosact flat out states that anyone who doesn't like die rolling is guilty of "Jealousy" or "Sour Grapes". Funny how ascribing motives is all one sided. .

I "flat out said that"? Where is my quote? I said that I haven't seen a single argument so far for why one player having better stats than another is a bad thing that doesn't come down to jealousy or sour grapes.

Those are two totally different statements. For one, my statement has nothing to do with liking or disliking something, but has focused solely on the arguments presented. Then again, I'm not all that surprised that someone who is ascribing behavior of others (you) would resort to a strawman. So there's that.

 

[Crothian]

A base presumption for the last, what, fifteen years and three editions? Not really a big assumption.

Not really. I've seen plenty of people talk about having PCs of a few level differences. I see at my own table.

Not at all. But, the encounters have to be designed against some baseline. What it means is that the die rolled group is typically operating at a higher level than the point buy group.

No, they don't. There is a method of play that just has encounters and does not assume that they are blaanced for the characters. This is seen in some sandbox campaigns but in others as well. We see it in published modules that some encounters are redicolously easy and some are almost guaranteed TPKs.

Again, a baseline assumption of 3e, 4e and now 5e. Not a big shocker there.

The idea that 3e classes were balanced across levels is laughable.

True. But, we can't control for that. If Player X is much higher skill level AND has a much higher point buy value character, he's going to dramatically outshine the other PC.

You'd be amazed on what a good DM can control. I deal with people of huge experience discrepancies all the time running games at conventions. It is rarely ever a problem.

This last bit I disagree with. "Average" die rolled characters are a lot less common than they should be because many tables allow fudging during chargen. "Die Rolled" as often as not, means "I roll until I get something I like"

Sure it happens but if those people can't roll dice to get something they like what makes you think if they use point buy they aren't going to be using more points then the typical character is supposed to have? This is not a problem with rolling dice it is a problem with certain players and their DMs allowing high attributes for their characters.

You can use die rolls all you like. I don't really care. The point I'm making though is that die rolled characters are frequently the source of many of the balance issues in the game. A lot of the headaches of D&D go away when you don't use die rolls.

That's pure speculation. In just looking down all the thread titles on the first page of the 5e forum it looks like none of them that about problems see those problems rooted in attribute issues. This could change as the threads on the forum are fluid. I think most headaches are caused by the people playing the game and bad communication as in most things in life.

 

[Hussar]

I "flat out said that"? Where is my quote? I said that I haven't seen a single argument so far for why one player having better stats than another is a bad thing that doesn't come down to jealousy or sour grapes.

Those are two totally different statements. For one, my statement has nothing to do with liking or disliking something, but has focused solely on the arguments presented. Then again, I'm not all that surprised that someone who is ascribing behavior of others (you) would resort to a strawman. So there's that.

So, the points I made about game balance and encounter design are what? Jealousy or sour grapes?

 

[aramis erak]

Not really. I've seen plenty of people talk about having PCs of a few level differences. I see at my own table.

My home group does - everyone starts at 1st. 1st doesn't last that long. Two sessions is typical.

Currently, group is 4,4,4,4,3,1, with 2 of the 4's being close to 5.

 

[Hussar]

/snipI still haven't read a single argument why another player having a better stat is bad that doesn't come down to sour grapes or jealousy.

/snip And if someone wins the lottery, I'm going to be glad for them and not sit and whine about how it's not fair to me.

So, anyone that disagrees with you is guilty of jealousy or sour grapes and is just whining. Since you haven't seen "a single argument" in the whole thread otherwise.

But, hey, I'm just building strawmen right? Ascribing motives and all that. Funny how that's only ever, one way.

 

[Hussar]

BTW, when I'm talking about assumptions, I'm talking about GAME ASSUMPTIONS, not what happens at your table. The game assumes everyone is the same level and has done so since 3e.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

A base presumption for the last, what, fifteen years and three editions? Not really a big assumption.

References would be good here to clarify what you're talking about. It wasn't an assumption in AD&D2, and it's not an assumption in 5E, so maybe your "three editions" are 3/3.5/4? Or if you're referring to 5E, please provide references.