D&D 5E Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats

[Oofta]

If I read your test scenario right, it looked like the impact was greater at low levels. Receding rapidly at levels that have large jumps in power. Did you look at high level play?

My players love rolling stats. To create parity I then let them use stats rolled by anyone at the table in lieu of their own.

Personally I do not like ANY stat generation method now that I have looked at them.

It was consistently 20-30% difference at levels 4 and 5. Beyond that ... the number of options becomes more difficult to track. Someone who's maxed out stats is going to start taking feats for example.

So for example with my sample characters, at 6th level the high roller may well have maxed out their strength. At that point they can take a feat like shield mastery to knock opponents prone to get advantage on attacks which is pretty huge. The person with lower scores (assuming maxing out strength for simplicity) is probably going to have to wait for 8th or 10th level. But by then the other guy has taken ___.

 

[Oofta]

And it focused on the issue of stat differences. You could probably run it with the same stats, but one character is a fighter (w/wo Action Surge & Second Wind) and the other a barbarian (w/wo Rage), for instance. See how much more or less of a difference class makes than stat bonus did.

I do not need more ideas on how to waste my time. Although I do have a road trip coming up and in theory my wife will be driving half the time ...

 

[Oofta]

What your analysis does is it provides us with a baseline for discussion. It establishes the inherent mathematical outcomes within this edition, assuming all other things being equal. What it doesn't do, however, is put a period on the discussion of survivability. In order to examine this idea of survivability we need to build upon the math you provided and examine how human behavior magnifies or mitigates the mathematical disparity. And, unfortunately, this is a very difficult discussion to have as all experiences are anecdotal.



This line assumes human behavior will be identical (or at least similar enough to not affect the outcome). However, many of us have noticed within our games that the mere act of changing the initial ability scores will affect a myriad of decisions made throughout character creation and campaign play. I think this is where some of us are getting hung up on with your algorithm. Your algorithm doesn't match our experiences. So the question ought to be: What is different in our games?

Within my own game, I noticed two things: First, players tend to place higher ability scores on lower tiered characters. Second, players tend to play higher ability score characters more recklessly than lower ability score characters. The combination of those two decisions I believe is mitigating a portion of the inherent mathematical differences between any two sets of stats.

It is also important to consider that my players have a character stable and adventure within a sandbox environment. This may influence why my players choose to build characters the way they do. A campaign that runs a more traditional 4/5 person party through a linear adventure may have wildly different experiences.

I'm not trying to quantify "enjoyment" or "challenge" factor. I can't. Different people get different things out of the game, which is fine.

What I can quantify is: if Bob wants to play a dwarven fighter, how much can we expect ability scores to affect how effective his character is in combat. Yes, it's only one slice of the pie, but it's an important piece to many people. Combat is also the one slice that virtually all campaigns experience at one point or other.

So that's my one and only goal with my simulation. How much variance in combat effectiveness can I expect on average if I roll for stats. That doesn't mean someone else couldn't be more effective with exactly the same stats or that some people are "wrong" to enjoy the variability.

 

[Maxperson]

It was consistently 20-30% difference at levels 4 and 5. Beyond that ... the number of options becomes more difficult to track. Someone who's maxed out stats is going to start taking feats for example.

That assumption is a flaw in your process. Lots of people aren't going to wait that long to take feats. Feats are quite often better than pure stat bumps and come with a +1 to a stat as well. People will be taking them at 4th level.

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah. They have divided up 5e classes into 3 tiers.

So...er...who did this dividing, and on what criteria?

 

[Maxperson]

So...er...who did this dividing, and on what criteria?

"They"! I assume it's the power gaming crowd from the old charop boards. The classes aren't equal, that's for sure.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?455464-Classes-Rated-By-Tier

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?371188-So-is-there-a-tier-list-for-5th-edition

 

[Tony Vargas]

Did those two gnomes have the exact same spells know, spells memorized, same items and same college?

Bards don't memorize spells in 5e, and they had the same items only in the sense of none. Same college, though.

Were the players the same in ability?

Sure, both fairly casual.

I have.

Also merely an assertion. ;P

Player ability is huge, though

It can be, system mastery, reading & manipulating the DM. Of course, there's no inverse correlation between random stats and player ability, so...

In my group if I had a wizard with a 12 int, a second guy had an identical wizard except for a 16 int, and a third guy had an identical wizard except for the a 20 int, I would destroy them both with combat effectiveness. I am far better than either one of them at playing spell casters.

And you're humble,too. ;P.

You might also roll the 20 INT.

[MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION] put at issue different players playing the two different stat arrays

Specifically he related an anecdote in which the two players in question both found the disparity wrecked their enjoyment and didn't stay with the campaign long.

It's just a minor deal when compared to all of those other things.

If dice somehow rolled lower for system masters, and consistently bestowed wild beginners luck, and magic items were repelled by high stats, that might even matter.

 

[Lanefan]

(And I'm not exaggerating for effect - my roommate saw exactly this happen in a game that started a week ago that he is playing in. 4d6 drop the lowest, puppy dog eyes at the DM, and oddly enough everyone has phenomenal stats. )

That's squarely on the DM.

If there's to be an option for bad-stat reroll the criteria for it need to be spelled out ahead of time (in my own case it's this: Reroll if before racial or age adjustments either of these is true: a) your highest roll is 13 or less; b) the average of your six rolled stats is less than 10.0) and then stuck to.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

If dice somehow rolled lower for system masters

All too often they don't, and the rich get richer.

and consistently bestowed wild beginners luck

This, on the other hand, happens far more often than random chance would dictate!

 

[Caliban]

That's squarely on the DM.

If there's to be an option for bad-stat reroll the criteria for it need to be spelled out ahead of time (in my own case it's this: Reroll if before racial or age adjustments either of these is true: a) your highest roll is 13 or less; b) the average of your six rolled stats is less than 10.0) and then stuck to.

Lanefan

I wasn't making a value judgement - apparently the DM is OK with it, or they wouldn't have allowed it. Just noting that it can happen in the real world, since that seems to be a point of contention with some people.

I think rolled stats are fine. Just not for me.