D&D 5E Why I Am Starting to Prefer 4d6 Drop the Lowest Over the Default Array.

[TheCosmicKid]

They're still homogenous though. They're not all the same in exactly the same way a standard array is, but if they truly are normalized then they're still all the same in fundamental ways that I will quickly notice, and they are therefore kind of boring.

Five of these arrays are normalized. Five are not. You can probably spot a couple of the non-normalized ones; I didn't cherry-pick them to look normalized. But I'd be frankly incredulous if you told me that exactly half of the arrays are interesting to you while the other half bore you to tears (you say "kind of boring", but since you're saying it's worth the risk of player dissatisfaction to avoid them, I have to assume you mean something stronger).

1: [15, 9, 9, 15, 12, 11]
2: [8, 15, 9, 12, 16, 15]
3: [12, 15, 12, 14, 4, 12]
4: [12, 16, 9, 17, 15, 13]
5: [13, 9, 14, 11, 18, 9]
6: [14, 10, 14, 14, 9, 11]
7: [15, 7, 8, 15, 13, 13]
8: [14, 4, 14, 13, 11, 13]
9: [10, 15, 12, 14, 8, 13]
10: [11, 12, 13, 14, 14, 15]

Rolling for stats still produces arrays that cluster around a mean. It's quite probable that a party of rolled PCs all have scores which total to within a few points of each other (probably in the low 70s), and are homogeneous according to various other metrics. Would this party bore you too? Given the way the probability works, can I say that rolling is itself a normalization method, just an unreliable one?

And much of the time, people who play with standard array or especially point buy seem to rationalize themselves out of playing their scores anyway. You see lots of people claiming that Int 8 isn't really stupid, it's just "not book-smart." That way they can spend all of their points on Str, Wis, and Con (or whatever).

I think rationalization of this sort is worse among those playing with randomized scores (normalized or otherwise -- this isn't about that). With point buy or a standard array, you're putting the score you want into the ability you want, so presumably it's a decent fit for your character concept. With dice, you might end up with with a 7 or 8 in Intelligence when the character you had in mind would really be better suited with an 11 or 12, and that's when you start rationalizing.

PS: 8 Int probably shouldn't be interpreted as 80 IQ. Assuming 3d6 generates a bell curve, it's at a rather higher point on the curve. And a mere -1 on Int checks doesn't really represent severe mental incapacity all that well.

 

[MoonSong]

PS: 8 Int probably shouldn't be interpreted as 80 IQ. Assuming 3d6 generates a bell curve, it's at a rather higher point on the curve. And a mere -1 on Int checks doesn't really represent severe mental incapacity all that well.

I made a calculation on the Int 8 - Wis 8 - Cha 18 sorcerer thread. Int 8 is broadly in the 85-90 IQ rank. Not a severe handicap by any means

 

[Ashkelon]

I have never once seen a player with a rolled stats role play better than someone using point buy. In fact, at the table it is rare to even know what attributes a player has unless you look at their sheet. As such, I feel that rolling stats really doesn't add much to the game other than appealing to tradition.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Five of these arrays are normalized. Five are not. You can probably spot a couple of the non-normalized ones; I didn't cherry-pick them to look normalized. But I'd be frankly incredulous if you told me that exactly half of the arrays are interesting to you while the other half bore you to tears (you say "kind of boring", but since you're saying it's worth the risk of player dissatisfaction to avoid them, I have to assume you mean something stronger).

1: [15, 9, 9, 15, 12, 11]
2: [8, 15, 9, 12, 16, 15]
3: [12, 15, 12, 14, 4, 12]
4: [12, 16, 9, 17, 15, 13]
5: [13, 9, 14, 11, 18, 9]
6: [14, 10, 14, 14, 9, 11]
7: [15, 7, 8, 15, 13, 13]
8: [14, 4, 14, 13, 11, 13]
9: [10, 15, 12, 14, 8, 13]
10: [11, 12, 13, 14, 14, 15]

Normalized arrays have a boring distribution. An individual array isn't boring--indeed, that wouldn't sense since any given normalized array can also be generated with 4d6 drop lowest. Instead, generate ten arrays that are all normalized. THAT's what gets boring: always playing in the same section of attribute space.

A given PC who is 5'6" and has exactly one sibling of the opposite sex, two years older or younger, is not boring. Ten such PCs in a row are boring.

Rolling for stats still produces arrays that cluster around a mean. It's quite probable that a party of rolled PCs all have scores which total to within a few points of each other (probably in the low 70s), and are homogeneous according to various other metrics. Would this party bore you too? Given the way the probability works, can I say that rolling is itself a normalization method, just an unreliable one?

This is why it's fun to sometimes use different stat rolling methods, e.g. 3d6 in order is fun sometimes.

Edit: besides, why do you care about the sum of the attribute arrays? 3 + 18 has the same sum as 10 + 11 and 15 + 6, but they play out very differently.

I think rationalization of this sort is worse among those playing with randomized scores (normalized or otherwise -- this isn't about that). With point buy or a standard array, you're putting the score you want into the ability you want, so presumably it's a decent fit for your character concept. With dice, you might end up with with a 7 or 8 in Intelligence when the character you had in mind would really be better suited with an 11 or 12, and that's when you start rationalizing.

No, with rolled stats, unlike point buy, you can't trade "useless" stats for extra points in mechanically-useful ones, so a lot of the tension goes away. You may be allocating your 4th, 5th, and 6th worst stats among e.g. Str/Int/Cha (for an archer fighter or ranger), but you can't cannibalize any of those to boost your Dex/Con/Wis. (Actually at my table, boosting Int is about as popular as boosting Con, which is to say "not quite as popular as maxing your attack stat/AC but still quite popular". I think that is due to the initiative variant I use though, and the fact that players don't like feeling like "dummies" compared to the other PCs and monsters.)

At any rate, my anecdotal observation from these forums is that the loudest defenders of "Int 8 isn't really very stupid" always seem to be point-buy advocates and/or stat normalizers.

PS: 8 Int probably shouldn't be interpreted as 80 IQ. Assuming 3d6 generates a bell curve, it's at a rather higher point on the curve. And a mere -1 on Int checks doesn't really represent severe mental incapacity all that well.

If you treat 3d6 as a bell curve, than Int 8 is (2.5/2.96=0.84) standard deviations below the norm. On WAIS, the standard deviation is 15 points, so Int 8 equates to an IQ of 88. The average high school graduate has an IQ of 105 on WAIS. Int 8 is dim compared to high school graduates. 0.84 SD below the norm is at the 20th percentile of Intelligence. You're not a drooling idiot, but you're used to being the dumbest person in the room.

A single Int 8 character isn't remarkable (although it's kind of hard to roleplay well). A party full of Int 8 PCs and a single Int 20 wizard is ludicrous, but point buy encourages it.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Why is that any different from what most people do - roll the numbers and assign where you want?

Want randomized stat placement? Roll for which array you use and then roll for placement. Randomized while still starting all characters on equal footing.

Or ... I don't know ... just let people build and play the character they had envisioned.

If you're advocating for completely freeform stat generation, where the DM says, "assign whatever stats makes sense," I'd be open to that every once in a while.

 

[MostlyDm]

If you're advocating for completely freeform stat generation, where the DM says, "assign whatever stats makes sense," I'd be open to that every once in a while.

If you have a good group that you know well, this works great and is my favorite method.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

If you have a good group that you know well, this works great and is my favorite method.

If I were going to run a campaign Wheel-of-Time style where the social contract was, "These PCs are the protagonists of the story, and I the DM will make sure that whatever bad things may happen will not lead to your permanent death", as opposed to old-school "Any PC can die at any time and you'd better have a backup", then I'd definitely go for "assign whatever stats make sense to you, in consultation with your fellow players."

I think the one thing I would do in that case, just to make the point, would be to carefully describe the PCs back to their players to make sure we're all on the same page. If you have Str 18, Con 18, Int 18, and Wis 16, I will want you to be cognizant of the fact that you're stronger than Arnold Schwarzenegger, as smart as Albert Einstein, as healthy as a gold medal Olympic athlete in their prime (Michael Phelps?), and as calmly rational and self-controlled as... a really wise person (can't think of a good example). You're either the result of a long-term selective breeding program, or someone who won the genetic lottery at billions-to-one odds. You will probably NEVER meet anyone as exceptional as you unless it is another PC. If that's who you want to play, then okay.

I would want to make sure that all players have some kind of frame of reference for their stats that isn't just "if I pick 18 then I get +4 instead of +3".

 

[Oofta]

I get that people have a tendency to play dumb fighters or wimpy wizards. I just don't think there is a stat generation method that is going to get around our preconceived archetypes.

Personally, I've played (reasonably) intelligent fighters and strong wizards. But I've also played my share of clumsy clerics and dim paladins. Because those were the characters I've had fun playing.

If I want to riff off The Tic for my paladin, what does it hurt? Why should I be forced to play a character I don't want to play? And why is it an issue if stats vary "only" between 8 and 15?

 

[FrogReaver]

So I rolled up sorcerer with 20 cha, 19 wisdom, 18 dex, 12 con, 9 int, 8 str

I pretty much would never have assigned a high wisdom to the character with the standard array. Maybe a 12 or 13 but no higher. I could have assigned that 19 to con and been a much stronger combat character but the wisdom fit my master of conversation idea of which "wisdom: insight" seems very important to me. So now I have the character that can talk anyone into anything and can tell mid conversation if what he's saying is having the intended effect on the person or if he needs to try a different conversation strategy to get what he wants from that person.

I find myself making more interesting characters when I roll than when I use point buy at least IMO. So many classes heavily benefit from 3 different stats and hardly any from the other stats. With point buy and racials about all you can feasibly get is 3 moderate stats and like a 12 or 13. When rolling if I roll good then I can have enough in the 2-3 stats I benefit from and still have room for one interesting character stat that isn't stereotypical for archetype.

Yes, I could play "inferior" characters with the standard array and I have before. My 8 con rogue with high dex and wis was a blast (expertise with passive perception and the observant feat WOOT!) But by and large most character concepts just can't make great use of high "offstats".

 

[Ashkelon]

So I rolled up sorcerer with 20 cha, 19 wisdom, 18 dex, 12 con, 9 int, 8 str

I pretty much would never have assigned a high wisdom to the character with the standard array. Maybe a 12 or 13 but no higher. I could have assigned that 19 to con and been a much stronger combat character but the wisdom fit my master of conversation idea of which "wisdom: insight" seems very important to me. So now I have the character that can talk anyone into anything and can tell mid conversation if what he's saying is having the intended effect on the person or if he needs to try a different conversation strategy to get what he wants from that person.

I find myself making more interesting characters when I roll than when I use point buy at least IMO. So many classes heavily benefit from 3 different stats and hardly any from the other stats. With point buy and racials about all you can feasibly get is 3 moderate stats and like a 12 or 13. When rolling if I roll good then I can have enough in the 2-3 stats I benefit from and still have room for one interesting character stat that isn't stereotypical for archetype.

Yes, I could play "inferior" characters with the standard array and I have before. My 8 con rogue with high dex and wis was a blast (expertise with passive perception and the observant feat WOOT!) But by and large most character concepts just can't make great use of high "offstats".

All it takes to make your sorcerer interesting is a +2 bonus to wisdom checks? That translates to what, 10% more success? That seems hardly noticeable. In fact it will rarely make a difference at the table.

I feel like you would have been better served by using point by and getting a free skill or racial feat.

That way you can have your high charisma sorcererer who takes the feat that grants expertise in Insight and allows for searching as a bonus action. That gives you your increased bonus to Insight (more than you would get by merely having a high wisdom) and throws in an extra benefit on top that is even more relevant to being able to read people.

All in all, anything you feel rolling will help with in terms of role play can probably be achieved better by using point buy and giving players a free racial or skill feat at level 1.

Also, notice how rolled PCs always seem to have multiple 18+ numbers. I guess players like to cheat. Or suicide their characters if they roll poorly until they get a good roll. That hardly seems like good role play...