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

[TheNoremac42]

My group likes to randomize our whole character creation - race, background, class, and stats. If we don't like the results of the first three, we usually roll again. Randomized results are easier to think about and creates interesting combination to try.

 

[cbwjm]

But why does it all have to be about "numbers" and "build" in the first place? That sounds like powergamer min-maxer talk, though you don't otherwise come across as such.

Having a character concept in mind before rolling is very cool. Having a character concept in mind before rolling that requires certain stats to be certain values in order to work is not cool, and this is why I rarely do it - particularly in 1e where classes have specific stat minima (which I've always kinda liked, though I'm in the minority there I think).

Lanefan

I like the idea of minimum stat requirements as well. I thought it made sense that having at least a 9 in your prime requisite was necessary since, back before 3e, anything below a 9 meant penalties started to come into effect. They kept it to a small degree in 3e with requiring a minimum spellcasting stat to cast certain levels of spells but otherwise stat requirements were essentially gone.

Sent from my SM-G925I using EN World mobile app

 

[Sadras]

I absolutely love the stat requirements of earier editions - I just remember I was never a fan of the rolling due to the disparity it created between players, I was also a much younger DM back then and that certainly didn't help.
I will certainly incorporate them (stat requirements) now that [MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION] posted that neat card system for generating stats.

 

[Oofta]

But why does it all have to be about "numbers" and "build" in the first place? That sounds like powergamer min-maxer talk, though you don't otherwise come across as such.

Having a character concept in mind before rolling is very cool. Having a character concept in mind before rolling that requires certain stats to be certain values in order to work is not cool, and this is why I rarely do it - particularly in 1e where classes have specific stat minima (which I've always kinda liked, though I'm in the minority there I think).

Lanefan

I wrote up a long post on comparing Tik and Tok, my example dwarven siblings but I don't see the point of posting. To make a long story short at 4th level if they were individually fighting a hell hound Tik would last 3.8 rounds, the hell hound would last 8.6. Tok lasted 6.8 rounds while the hell hound lasted 6.

So in other words, Tik is crispy doggy chow (beaten by 5 rounds) and Tok walks away singed, battered and bruised but still alive. My comparison didn't even take into account the fact the Tik probably loses initiative and Tok probably wins so the numbers should be even worse than what my quick calculations show. So IMHO the two characters are night and day as far as effectiveness because of their ability scores.

So you ask my why it's about "numbers". Well, from a game (not an RP/immersion/story telling perspective) I want to play competent characters. Tik, compared to Tok, is not competent.

As much as you try to find a different role or class, if Tok was in that same role/class he would be hands down better at his job than Tik.

Maybe you don't care. That's great. Personally? I like being good at my job. I take pride in my work. I want my characters to also be good at their jobs. So while I am not a powergamer by any means (I don't care about optimization and tend to build generalists) I want to feel like I contribute to the team.

End of the day, as I've stated repeatedly, it's just my preference. I don't see the point of numerically gifting some characters while handicapping others.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

But why does it all have to be about "numbers" and "build" in the first place? That sounds like powergamer min-maxer talk, though you don't otherwise come across as such.

This game is predicated on there being a correlation between the numbers and the in-universe reality. Having a high number in Strength means your character is strong, having a low number means your character is weak. Having a high number in Intelligence means your character is smart, having a low number means your character is dumb. This concern for what the numbers represent about your character is, if anything, the opposite of min-maxer talk -- min-maxers stereotypically have little regard for the in-game reality and try to weasel out of the consequences of low scores.

Say you've got two players, Alice and Bob, whose characters both have 8 Int. Alice is unhappy because she wanted to play a smart character but that 8 Int says her character isn't smart. Bob doesn't care and just optimizes his character based on the stats he has, working around the low Intelligence as much as possible when roleplaying. Which one is the powergamer? I don't think it's Alice.

But you'll note I used the word "stereotypically" above, and that's a part of the problem too: you're making an implicit judgment based on stereotyped gamer personalities, not real people or games or experiences. So really, we shouldn't call Bob a powergamer either, at least not before we've gotten an opportunity to meet him.

Having a character concept in mind before rolling is very cool. Having a character concept in mind before rolling that requires certain stats to be certain values in order to work is not cool, and this is why I rarely do it - particularly in 1e where classes have specific stat minima (which I've always kinda liked, though I'm in the minority there I think).

I don't think Alice above is "not cool" for deciding she wants to play a smart character. I think if you're going to dismiss character concepts as broad and basic as smart-guy for being "not cool", you're ruling out so many ordinary plausible character concepts that your endorsement of the character-concept method rings rather hollow.

 

[Soul Stigma]

Not aimed at anyone in particular, but this thread has gone full clown shoes. People have their preferences, their reasons/beliefs for those preferences, and no one is going to convince anyone differently. At best there are logical arguments for one person's point of view, which can be argued against equally logically because no one is really arguing the exact same thing.

Anyway, that's my two cents, worth every penny in today's economy. Carry on!


Sent from my iPhone using EN World

 

[pming]

Hiya!

I'm going with [MENTION=12608]Soul[/MENTION]Stigma above. I posted back in the beginning? Middle? Can't remember now.

Anyway, I always find that at the tail end of these threads they devolve a "bit" into the theorycrafting side of things as each "side" tries to prove they are correct. In this particular thread, I always get a giggle out of watching someone try and back up their claim that random character gen is "bad'ish" by then continuing to use an example that only uses averages or absolutes.

Sort of... "Rolling 3d6 is dumb because it's average is 10.5! You can't *roll* 10.5, so right there the system is broken! Even if we say it's 9 to 11, that's still dumb, because now everything that is 8 or lower fails, and everything 12 or more succeeds. The DM has to basically ALWAYS have things be 9, 10 or 11, or else is is setting up all the players who rolled badly on some stat to fail...Every. Single. Time! It's madness!" <--and in so doing they completely leave out the fact that a random dice roll is used to get the starting number to succeed/fail to begin with.



I've seen characters with absolutely pathetic stats succeed and prosper time and time again. Barkus, the 11th level fighter...with a Strength of 4 and a Constitution of 7; or Mort, the 4th level "begger-archer" with a Strength of 6, Constitution of 9, and Charisma of 4; or Jose Jojoba, the mutant jojoba plant with a chicken head who had stats so low you would have though he should have died as a seedling...all characters went on to great success. I've seen the opposite as well. Hell, I remember rolling up some absolutely ridiculous Monk for our Iron Kingdoms (3e) campaign. He had all 16's or higher, three stats were 18! He died second session in.

Only time that stats seem to make a big difference is when the DM has it in his/her head that the characters "stats" should determine what the character does...and not the player. When the DM starts asking for Strength checks to open a normal door, or a Constitution check to not die in his sleep, or a Wisdom check to not drink the potion labeled "POISON! DO NOT DRINK!". But that's a DM problem...not a random stat rolling method problem.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Lanefan]

Only time that stats seem to make a big difference is when the DM has it in his/her head that the characters "stats" should determine what the character does...and not the player. When the DM starts asking for Strength checks to open a normal door, or a Constitution check to not die in his sleep, or a Wisdom check to not drink the potion labeled "POISON! DO NOT DRINK!". But that's a DM problem...not a random stat rolling method problem.

Well, the other time the stats - be they good or bad - seem to make a difference is when the player takes them to heart and in effect decides to allow them to make said difference in the approach to how the character is played.

For example, a player who rolls really good stats might decide to underplay the character to bring it down to the party level - and in so doing run it into the ground as an unintended side effect. Or on the flip side, a player with god-like stats might decide to overplay the character as a one-person show and either become the party MVP or (more likely) die trying. Either way, the stats have influenced the play beyond just what the numbers say - and I've seen both happen (and done the second one myself, dammit!).

Going the other way, a player whose character's stats are somewhat limited might decide that the character is worthless and play it as such - contributing nothing instead of what it can - thus making it even less useful than it otherwise might be. Again, an example of the numbers influencing the player's approach above and beyond the simple math effects.

Take the example of Tik and the hell hound a few posts up. Tik's player could get discouraged, decide that Tik is both worthless and hopelessly outgunned, not put any thought or effort into keeping her going, and let Tik quietly die the death. Or, Tik's player - knowing full well that Tik's odds aren't great - could get on the front foot and have her stand in nonetheless to give it everything she has, and cheer her on knowing what a great story it'll be if she wins!

Lan-"I've played Tiks in the past - they don't always last long, but when they do it's wonderful"-efan

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Take the example of Tik and the hell hound a few posts up. Tik's player could get discouraged, decide that Tik is both worthless and hopelessly outgunned, not put any thought or effort into keeping her going, and let Tik quietly die the death. Or, Tik's player - knowing full well that Tik's odds aren't great - could get on the front foot and have her stand in nonetheless to give it everything she has, and cheer her on knowing what a great story it'll be if she wins!

Not to mention the fact that Tik can change her approach and beat that hound anyway, despite her "low" stats. (And in fact, a Str of 16 isn't remotely low. Tik is as beefy as an adult gorilla.)

Incidentally, this is yet another reason why I hate playing a low Int--it sets a up roleplaying tension that I find unpleasant. At Int 6 I really would have her just wade in there and bash away with her axe until she died; at Int 11 I'd feel a little bit more free to experiment with basic tactics like grapple/prone (esp. w/ Athletics Expertise), combined arms with other PCs, and hiding. (E.g. block the door with some rubble and try to climb out the chimney.) At a higher Int I might feel comfortable letting her take a few opportunity attacks if necessary in order to bait the hound out into an area where it can be killed with mounted tactics. The higher your Int, the more foresight you have, and the more sophisticated your tactics can appropriately be. (This applies to monsters too, obviously. My goblins don't do the goblin conga line because they're not smart enough and coordinated enough; but my hobgoblins do follow a tactical doctrine that includes taking cover in broken terrain, and horse archery/kiting in open terrain.)

 

[cbwjm]

Well, the other time the stats - be they good or bad - seem to make a difference is when the player takes them to heart and in effect decides to allow them to make said difference in the approach to how the character is played.

For example, a player who rolls really good stats might decide to underplay the character to bring it down to the party level - and in so doing run it into the ground as an unintended side effect. Or on the flip side, a player with god-like stats might decide to overplay the character as a one-person show and either become the party MVP or (more likely) die trying. Either way, the stats have influenced the play beyond just what the numbers say - and I've seen both happen (and done the second one myself, dammit!).

Going the other way, a player whose character's stats are somewhat limited might decide that the character is worthless and play it as such - contributing nothing instead of what it can - thus making it even less useful than it otherwise might be. Again, an example of the numbers influencing the player's approach above and beyond the simple math effects.

Take the example of Tik and the hell hound a few posts up. Tik's player could get discouraged, decide that Tik is both worthless and hopelessly outgunned, not put any thought or effort into keeping her going, and let Tik quietly die the death. Or, Tik's player - knowing full well that Tik's odds aren't great - could get on the front foot and have her stand in nonetheless to give it everything she has, and cheer her on knowing what a great story it'll be if she wins!

Lan-"I've played Tiks in the past - they don't always last long, but when they do it's wonderful"-efan

I wonder if part of the problem some people have is due to how stats have changed over editions. Ever since 3e, you gain modifiers much sooner whereas in earlier editions you gained bonuses from a stat of 15 or above. In 2e, someone with all 14s would be similar to someone with all 9s at the most basic level. There would be some differences, but on the whole not much in basic running around the dungeon gameplay.