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

[Oofta]

Obviously the numbers are different, and if that's all you look at then yes, the resulting abilities of the characters will also be different. (and FWIW you've given a pretty extreme pair of stat sets - 18-18-14-14-14-14 vs. 14-10-9-9-9-9 (filling in values not stated, using what you said as guidelines) - giving an average of 15.67 vs. 10.00 for the two characters. That's a huge difference, and IME extremely unlikely to happen within the same party. But, it's what you've got, so let's proceed.

Outright going to be better? Not necessarily. Are the odds in Tok's favour? Certainly. But you won't know the actual outcome - whether, say, Tik rolls into the hall of fame while Tok lies forgotten in an unmarked grave somewhere - until the game gets played out.



Lan-"stats aren't everything"-efan

I'm just using stats from the last game I played where we rolled for stats. I don't remember exact numbers - I think my wife's low number was a 6 but not sure that really matters all that much.

From a metagame standpoint Tok is numerically superior to Tik in every way. No one has explained why that is a good thing other than that it's what they prefer. I prefer more even footing.

We like to come up with characters and detailed backgrounds (often with "prequel" stories) to introduce characters long before the campaign starts. Random results are not only inherently unfair, they also make the preplanning and detailed back stories more difficult.

 

[RotGrub]

Is there anything new here?

Other than "you aren't playing the one true way, therefore you are doing it wrong?"

If one person gets every magical item and bonus while another receives nothing then yes, eventually I would think it's unfair. Same as if the DM looked at his buddy and said "Because I like you, I'm giving you a +3 weapon and a ring of protection +2 at first level. The rest of you are cursed and can never benefit from magical items."

If you're going to make an equivalency argument, follow it through to it's comparable scenario.

Why do you always make outlandish assertions? They are not arguments.

My point is that the game doesn't assume the balanced playing field you're comfortable with across all situations of play. There will be sessions in which your character just can't compete on a level playing field. In D&D, the spotlight isn't yours all the time. The halfling crawling through knee-high kobold tunnels will make a joke out of the 7' tall half-orc barbarian who hasn't enough frighting room.

Even for a mechanically obsessed player, you have no idea what your character will find, what situations he will be placed in, what feats in lieu of stat increases will be selected, etc. All these things are more important than a few stat modifiers at first level.


btw, I'm reminded of a shrine in which the caretakers would only talk to low charisma characters...

 

[Oofta]

Why do you always make outlandish assertions? They are not arguments.

My point is that the game doesn't assume the balanced playing field you're comfortable with across all situations of play. There will be sessions in which your character just can't compete on a level playing field. In D&D, the spotlight isn't yours all the time. The halfling crawling through knee-high kobold tunnels will make a joke out of the 7' tall half-orc barbarian who hasn't enough frighting room.

Even for a mechanically obsessed player, you have no idea what your character will find, what situations he will be placed in, what feats in lieu of stat increases will be selected, etc. All these things are more important than a few stat modifiers at first level.


btw, I'm reminded of a shrine in which the caretakers would only talk to low charisma characters...

How is my assertion "outlandish"?

I assume that over the course of their adventuring career characters will find roughly equivalent magic. Having significantly higher stats is the equivalent of having Tok having a +3 weapon and a +2 ring of protection with no chance for Tik to get equivalent items.

I don't see how that's fair.

 

[Psikerlord#]

We are doing this (which I stole from this board at some point) after the current campaign ends at 20th (we are close):

Everyone rolls ONE set of 4d6 drop lowest, then each set is written down on a sheet of paper. Players pick the stat array they want from the list, and players can even pick the same one. This way, either everyone is screwed equally, or everyone gets the god stats.

Low Fantasy Gaming RPG basically uses this method. Everyone rolls, but anyone can choose any array (possibly with a small penalty if you dont choose your own). You get the variety / avoid cookie cutter builds, but maintain intraparty balance.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Sounds a lot like D&D to me, especially the "you ran plenty of missions where she wasn't even there" part.

Um... what?

Most players don't view their PC as a subordinate whom they're giving orders to.
Most players don't have multiple PCs under their command in the same campaign.
And most players don't play adventures where their PC is not present and an active participant. (I don't even know what that would look like.)

The game of D&D pretty strongly assumes a persistent one-to-one identity of player to character. Even in the old-school high-mortality dungeon-crawl style of play, I can't recall ever seeing a group where the players bring teams of expendable adventurers -- each player is still one guy, even if that guy isn't expected to live for very long. That's a pretty fundamental difference in the dynamic between D&D and X-COM.

Who said it did? I even said that I would, as a DM, consider just letting you make up your own stats freeform, especially if it were a narrative-style PCs-never-die campaign. You want Dex 18 and Cha 18? Go for it, you can have them. And I won't call you a munchkin for it.

Great! Only point-buy is just a variety of make-up-your-stats with constraints to keep everybody on the same page. And the standard array is just point-buy with stricter constraints.

 

[billd91]

[EDIT]
I was going from memory on extra damage and so on and goofed.
Assuming target AC 13 (average)
Both using battle axe, average damage 4.5 per hit
Tik: Strength 16, has +4 to hit, 7.5 damage for average (.45 * 7.5) = 3.375
Tok: Strength 20, has +6 to hit, 9.5 damage for average (.55 * 9.5) = 5.225

Conclusion:
Tok does 65% more damage per round.
Tik has 12 HP, Tok as 15, Tok will last 20% longer in combat, not considering his far better saves for pretty much everything.

This is called "how to play spin doctor with statistics". Tok is doing less than 2 points more damage (on average) than Tik - but because you're spinning it as a percentage change from Tik's perspective, it obscures the fact that it's only 2 points from an objective perspective. Similarly, with only 3 more hit points than Tik, objectively, Tok might be able to survive 1 hit longer than Tik depending on how the damage is being rolled - yet you're spinning it as 20% longer as if that's significantly meaningful.

The math may not be wrong, but there's a reason there's a well known book titled "How to Lie with Statistics" and it's largely about perspective and framing the data. Tell someone that Tok tends to do 2 more points of damage and people will brush it off. Tell them "OMG! IT'S 65% MOAR!" and they'll take notice.

 

[Oofta]

This is called "how to play spin doctor with statistics". Tok is doing less than 2 points more damage (on average) than Tik - but because you're spinning it as a percentage change from Tik's perspective, it obscures the fact that it's only 2 points from an objective perspective. Similarly, with only 3 more hit points than Tik, objectively, Tok might be able to survive 1 hit longer than Tik depending on how the damage is being rolled - yet you're spinning it as 20% longer as if that's significantly meaningful.

The math may not be wrong, but there's a reason there's a well known book titled "How to Lie with Statistics" and it's largely about perspective and framing the data. Tell someone that Tok tends to do 2 more points of damage and people will brush it off. Tell them "OMG! IT'S 65% MOAR!" and they'll take notice.

Well, there are lies, damn lies and statistics.

But what's the point? Tok is better at combat, has more hit points (the difference will become significant at higher levels), better saves, better skills. From a game perspective I see that as a significant difference.

Seems like more of the same "you aren't playing the game the way I play it so you're doing it wrong". I just think it's hilarious that people can look at these two characters and claim they're practically identical twins. Seriously?

 

[TheCosmicKid]

This is called "how to play spin doctor with statistics". Tok is doing less than 2 points more damage (on average) than Tik - but because you're spinning it as a percentage change from Tik's perspective, it obscures the fact that it's only 2 points from an objective perspective. Similarly, with only 3 more hit points than Tik, objectively, Tok might be able to survive 1 hit longer than Tik depending on how the damage is being rolled - yet you're spinning it as 20% longer as if that's significantly meaningful.

The math may not be wrong, but there's a reason there's a well known book titled "How to Lie with Statistics" and it's largely about perspective and framing the data. Tell someone that Tok tends to do 2 more points of damage and people will brush it off. Tell them "OMG! IT'S 65% MOAR!" and they'll take notice.

"Only 2 points" is only 2 points when you're working with, say, a hundred-point scale. But if you're dealing with numbers mostly between 1 and 12 or so, as you are with damage rolls, then there's nothing "only" about a 2-point difference. A 2-point difference is negligible in basketball but daunting in hockey. Barely perceptible on the Celsius scale but catastrophic on the Richter scale.

Because of this problem of scale, expressing the gap as a percentage is honestly the best way to communicate its magnitude. It simply provides clearer context. Yes, you can lie with statistics through the abuse of percentages. But you can also lie with statistics by using unit values and relying on people's intuitions that 1 and 2 are "small" numbers to convince them that the difference is also "small". And that, I am afraid, is what you are consciously or subconsciously doing here. "You say the earthquake is a hundred times stronger, but that's only 2 points on the Richter scale! Nothing to worry about!"

 

[cbwjm]

Seems like more of the same "you aren't playing the game the way I play it so you're doing it wrong". I just think it's hilarious that people can look at these two characters and claim they're practically identical twins. Seriously?

You do realise that this is exactly how you come across. That because some people like to roll their stats that they are somehow doing it wrong.

Sent from my SM-G925I using EN World mobile app

 

[Oofta]

You do realise that this is exactly how you come across. That because some people like to roll their stats that they are somehow doing it wrong.

Sent from my SM-G925I using EN World mobile app

Nope. I don't care if you roll stats, which I have stated repeatedly. It's just not my cup of tea.

Ignoring basic math as if stats don't matter irks me. Saying that Tik and Tok should have different builds so that we're comparing apples and oranges to cloud the results. Saying that +2 damage and +10% to hit inconsequential when rolling a d8 for damage and you have roughly a 50% chance to hit is ignoring facts.

If you want random results, great. I just wish you would be willing to honestly acknowledge the consequences.