D&D 5E Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats

[Maxperson]

How do you explain the chart describing NPC characteristics in plain English terms rather than numbers then? What does "strong" actually mean if all NPC's MUST have stats?

What's to explain? I can describe someone with an 18 strength as burly, strong, massive, etc. A chart to help explain the statistics is a great boon to new DMs.

 

[Lanefan]

Sure, the thief tried to pick the lock, then much more often than not everyone took turns trying to bash open the door with brute strength, the burly fighter succeeding much more often than the thief or anyone else did. Assuming the thief was a dwarf, it still took until at least 6th level before he had a 50/50 shot. A fighter with a 16 strength had that kind of success at 1st level, maybe even better than that if he had 18/51 or higher strength. If the fighter had an 18/00 strength, the thief would have to be about 12th level to catch up. Gauntlets of ogre power were not uncommon, so the fighter would be likely to have one by 6th level, and a belt of giant strength by 12th. Basically the thief was unlikely to ever be as good with his skill at opening doors as the fighter with his strength.

Though in fairness to the Thief, she does have the advantage that if she manages to pick the lock the party can pass through the door without alerting everything within a hundred yards to their presence...

 

[Maxperson]

Though in fairness to the Thief, she does have the advantage that if she manages to pick the lock the party can pass through the door without alerting everything within a hundred yards to their presence...

This is true, but in my experience it was a treat when it managed to happen.

Of course, traps were very lethal in 1e, so thieves tended to die pretty quickly since their ability to find and remove traps was even worse than opening the lock, and their poison saves were not that fantastic.

 

[Wulffolk]

Will this thread make it to 100 pages? Stayed tuned to find out if this horse will ever be thoroughly beaten to death!

Then coming later this winter be sure to check out my new thread on Roll vs Buy, when I raise this dead horse as my zombie minion to take vengeance on all who disagree with my One True Way!

 

[Yardiff]

There's no such thing as special NPCs. There is also no language in the PHB to indicate that these "special" NPCs are the only type NPC that would get racial bonuses, but there is language all over the place indicating that all NPCs get them.

Show me all this stuff stating that NPCs get racial bonuses. If they don't get stats they don't get bonuses. And NPCs build as PCs are special NPCs if you cant understand that....

 

[Hussar]

No. It's BEFORE any talk of "special" NPCs. It's generically entitled "NPC Statistics", not "Special NPC Statistics". By the way, where is the phrase "special NPC"? I don't see it.

Gee, not a shock that you can't see it.

Try looking on the THREE FULL PAGES before it talks about NPC Statistics. Note, the exact quote is:

When you give an NPC game statistics (bold mine)

The previous three pages talk about NPC's that have no game statistics and specifically states:

An NPC doesn't need combat statistics unless it poses a threat. Moreover, most NPC's need only one or two qualities to make them memorable.

It then lists plain English descriptors for NPC's ("Powerful, brawny"... "feeble" "scrawny"). Note, NONE of these are tied to a specific game stat.

What's to explain? I can describe someone with an 18 strength as burly, strong, massive, etc. A chart to help explain the statistics is a great boon to new DMs.

Is a Powerful NPC one with an 18 Strength as you say? Prove it. Show me. Show me where "Powerful" means 18. Wouldn't a 14 Strength NPC also qualify as powerful? After all, that NPC is considerably stronger than average. Far, FAR stronger than the difference in 1e between a 7 and 14.

But, sure, continue to ignore the pages of material that don't follow your logic in favor of cherry picking quotes.

 

[Maxperson]

Show me all this stuff stating that NPCs get racial bonuses. If they don't get stats they don't get bonuses. And NPCs build as PCs are special NPCs if you cant understand that....

I already did. The entire race section talks about the whole race and then gives the bonuses for the race. If the entire race consists of PCs, the entire race gets the bonuses. If the entire race consists of PCs and NPCs, then NPCs get the bonuses. It's on you at this point to prove that the language involving the entire races doesn't qualify NPCs to get the bonuses, and "Because it's the PHB" doesn't cut it as proof.

 

[Maxperson]

Gee, not a shock that you can't see it.

Try looking on the THREE FULL PAGES before it talks about NPC Statistics. Note, the exact quote is:

The previous three pages talk about NPC's that have no game statistics and specifically states:

Context man, context. That in the Quick NPCs section, so no, when the players decide to suddenly go into thrift store and you don't have an NPC ready, you don't need to stop and roll/assign stats if there's not going to be combat. That doesn't mean that the thrift store proprietor doesn't have stats. It just means that there's no need to slow the game down to give him some. After that one paragraph, it goes on to DETAILED NPCs, which are different from QUICK NPCs. In the DETAILED NPCs section, they do have abilities, but the paragraph in the abilities section states that you don't need to roll them. How do those DETAILED NPCs get stats? Well, I'm glad you asked. They get them as set forth in the NPC STATISTICS portion which you have to "conveniently" ignore every time I bring it up.

It then lists plain English descriptors for NPC's ("Powerful, brawny"... "feeble" "scrawny"). Note, NONE of these are tied to a specific game stat.

Seriously dude? Strength---powerful, brawny, strong as an ox, and Strength---feeble, scrawny aren't tied to a specific game stat?

But, sure, continue to ignore the pages of material that don't follow your logic in favor of cherry picking quotes.

That's your gig dude. I'm the one here looking at the whole section.

 

[Oofta]

Context man, context. That in the Quick NPCs section, so no, when the players decide to suddenly go into thrift store and you don't have an NPC ready, you don't need to stop and roll/assign stats if there's not going to be combat. That doesn't mean that the thrift store proprietor doesn't have stats. It just means that there's no need to slow the game down to give him some. After that one paragraph, it goes on to DETAILED NPCs, which are different from QUICK NPCs. In the DETAILED NPCs section, they do have abilities, but the paragraph in the abilities section states that you don't need to roll them. How do those DETAILED NPCs get stats? Well, I'm glad you asked. They get them as set forth in the NPC STATISTICS portion which you have to "conveniently" ignore every time I bring it up.



Seriously dude? Strength---powerful, brawny, strong as an ox, and Strength---feeble, scrawny aren't tied to a specific game stat?

You look at NPCs and see numbers. Everything seems to boil down to a number to you. It doesn't need to. I only use specific numbers when I need them for game mechanics.

It's a different approach. I envision a fantasy world first with mechanical implementation to enable interaction with that world. I get the impression you look at everything as a game first - numbers, ability scores, so on first and then add the trappings of a fantasy world on top. It's like a game of Risk with more complexity and flexibility.

That's your gig dude. I'm the one here looking at the whole section.

And cherry picking out half a dozen words after three pages contradicting your premise.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Sure, the thief tried to pick the lock, then much more often than not everyone took turns trying to bash open the door with brute strength

Not if the point was to get through the door quietly, they didn't. Or get into the chest without breaking the potion bottles or whatever that might be inside.

And lockpicking is just one example, there's the other thief 'special' abilities that 1e locked into class in a paroxysm of niche protection. Then there's effing spells.

Claiming that class didn't matter in 1e compared to stats is sheer overwhelming nonsense, Maxperson, it's so far from right, it's not even wrong. Compound that by pretending stats are unimportant important compared to class in 5e, when BA makes stat bonuses very important even at high level, and every check can be made with or without proficiency, and, really, you're not even trying to make a point, you're just pushing back blindly with no thought whatsoever, from some sheer, perverse, irresistible compulsion to contradict.

Gauntlets of ogre power were not uncommon, so the fighter would be likely to have one by 6th level, and a belt of giant strength by 12th.

So the expectation that the fighter's STR is going to be over-written by a magic item is somehow evidence that the stats he rolled matter? And, y'know, the gauntlets were a CFT item...

Of course, traps were very lethal in 1e, so thieves tended to die pretty quickly since their ability to find and remove traps was even worse than opening the lock, and their poison saves were not that fantastic.

Yeah, the Thief was a terrible class, no argument. No doubt one reason it had such draconian niche protection.

Only if you ignore the rest of that page and then turn over to the next page when they start talking about special NPC's. But, yeah, you're more interested in cherry picking quotes than actual discussion.

You each seem to be addressing only part of the rules with your quotes.

Really, though, the exact quotes barely matter, it's all in the context of D&D as a whole - 40 years of history don't disappear because you leave a detail or turn of phrase out of the latest ed.

You want to change something, you need to change it quite explicitly. No, not by coming out and saying "sub-system X has been deprecated," like it's a programming manual, but by clearly stating the new rule or assumption that's replaced the old. Merely not addressing past assumptions, while presenting things consistent with them, leaves those assumptions available to those who've been assuming them the whole time.
Which was a politic thing to do, given 5e's goals....