D&D 5E Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats

[Hriston]

So as pointed out, 3d6 in order became how 'normal' people were generated, and the other methods were simply shortcuts to getting ability scores that were 'better than' normal on average.

What do you base this conclusion on? One other method you don't seem to be mentioning here was actually how the scores of 'normal' people were generated, not 3d6, which is only mentioned in AD&D with reference to 'special' characters, not 'normal' people.

Yes, we can model characteristics of populations, and they conform to a bell curve. Yes, real world populations have bell curves which are flatter than that generated by 3d6.

I think you mean steeper, don't you, with more specimens conforming to the average and fewer at the extremes?

To this end, Gygax introduced the 'average' die (where 1=3 and 6=4, to get six results on a d6 of 2,3,3,4,4,5) in order to get a more flattened bell curve if the 3d6 bell curve (and its greater proportion of extremes) bothered you.

Right, which is the origin of the only method Gygax ever proposed for the random generation of scores for members of the general population, and not as an alternative to use if 3d6 "bothered" you, but the only proposed method.

It should be noted, as it was noted earlier in this thread, that the authors of the early modules also used 3d6 for NPC ability scores.

Really? Which ones? Were they 0-level NPCs, or did they have character classes?

Some even outright stated that you rolled 3d6 in order if you needed to generate an NPC.

Did they? What sort of NPC were they talking about, a commoner or a classed NPC?

The City State of the Invincible Overlord had every single inhabitant with stats rolled on 3d6, not '3d-average', and their scores did indeed range from 3 to 18.

I haven't read that setting, but I find it doubtful that Judges Guild published their methodology for determining the scores of NPCs. Also, extreme scores are not themselves evidence that the general population is represented by one method or another. The NPCs in question may have been conceived of as extremely rare individuals. Did they have classes?

In the editions since then, there has been no refutation of the 'truth' of 3d6 in order for the general population.

It's very telling that you put 'truth' in quotation marks. This so-called truth was never officially asserted, so required no refutation.

Every single piece of evidence in every edition remained and remains consistent with that, from the 'commoner' stats to the tables of ability scores which state that 10 or 10-11 was 'average.

Since you seem to understand the averaging method, then I don't need to tell you it has the same average as 3d6, and that average scores like 10 and 11 are far more likely to result, so I don't think this helps your case any.

Even in 5E it states that scores are between 3 and 18.

You misunderstand. I'm not arguing against the assertion that 3-18 is the full range of human ability scores. I think that's been established as a defining feature of the game for many years. I'm arguing against the assertion that 3d6 adequately represents the distribution of those scores in the general population. I haven't seen any compelling evidence that this is the case.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm not arguing against the assertion that 3-18 is the full range of human ability scores. I think that's been established as a defining feature of the game for many years

In 5e it goes up to 20, a hard cap of 18 has been comparatively rare, IIRC. In 4e there was no cap at all, but a practical limit of 28 or so. In 3e you could get up to a 36 or something, among stat bumps for leveling, enhancement bonuses and inherent bonuses. In AD&D you could occasionally finagle a 19.

I'm arguing against the assertion that 3d6 adequately represents the distribution of those scores in the general population. I haven't seen any compelling evidence that this is the case.

It seems obvious, on the face of it, that it'd give far too many extreme results.

 

[Lanefan]

That describes Xena, though you left out Wuxia China and feudal Japan.

I left out a bunch, actually; I was just trying to list some examples.

It might be that those druidic Celts only appeared in Hercules, and I don't remember any Native Americans - oh, but there were modern Americans.

Modern Americans is the X:WP equivalent to the crashed-spaceship in D&D.

And as it's pretty clear Xena and Herc operated in the same game-world equivalent, anything that appears in one is germaine to the other.

Autolycus and Salmoneus were played by the couple who were old friends of the group, but lived out of town and could only make to a session like twice a year.

I have a character, active right now, based pretty much directly on Callisto but as a wizard rather than a warrior.

Ethics? What ethics? It all looks better if it's on fire...

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

I haven't read that setting, but I find it doubtful that Judges Guild published their methodology for determining the scores of NPCs. Also, extreme scores are not themselves evidence that the general population is represented by one method or another. The NPCs in question may have been conceived of as extremely rare individuals. Did they have classes?

If memory serves, they statted out every adult in the (rather large) city, whether classed or not.

CSotIO is, for its time, a huge production - and one of Judges' Guild's better endeavours.

Lan-"and if you're looking to pick up CSotIO nowadays, be prepared to empty your wallet"-efan

 

[Hriston]

In 5e it goes up to 20, a hard cap of 18 has been comparatively rare, IIRC. In 4e there was no cap at all, but a practical limit of 28 or so. In 3e you could get up to a 36 or something, among stat bumps for leveling, enhancement bonuses and inherent bonuses. In AD&D you could occasionally finagle a 19.

I shouldn't have said "full range". What I meant and thought was obvious from the context was "full range for normal humans". In 5e, adventurers can have a 20, but the highest a "normal" person usually reaches is 18, according to the rule-books. Combine that with what they say about the normal human average being 10 or 11, and you can extrapolate the range from there.

It seems obvious, on the face of it, that it'd give far too many extreme results.

Right. I think it was designed to be swingy that way to give PCs unusual strengths and weaknesses.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I shouldn't have said "full range". What I meant and thought was obvious from the context was "full range for normal humans".

In 3e, for instance, normal humans could have classes - there was even a Commoner class - and levels, and thus bump their stats.... FWIW. (Nothing, really.) :shrug:

 

[Hriston]

In 3e, for instance, normal humans could have classes - there was even a Commoner class - and levels, and thus bump their stats.... FWIW. (Nothing, really.) :shrug:

That isn't a PC class though, so that normal human would start with the Basic NPC array: 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8. By level 20, and 5 ASIs later, it could have 18 as its highest score. Oh wait, that's PF.

 

[Hriston]

If memory serves, they statted out every adult in the (rather large) city, whether classed or not.

Was it common, though, for the un-classed NPCs to have scores above 15 or below 6?

 

[Lanefan]

Was it common, though, for the un-classed NPCs to have scores above 15 or below 6?

I don't remember. Long time since I looked at CSotIO, though I have parts of it around here somewhere...

 

[Hussar]

In the editions since then, there has been no refutation of the 'truth' of 3d6 in order for the general population.

Actually, that's not true. In three editions now, that has been refuted.

3ed - NPC's are given straight 10's unless they are Elite, in which case they use the Elite array. An NPC flat out cannot have a base stat higher than 15 (before level and racial adjustments of course).

4ed - NPC's, other than very specific individuals - are not given stats whatsoever. They have whatever skill bonus the DM feels is appropriate and that's it.

5ed - NPC's, other than specific individuals where stats can be rolled but aren't necessary - states that NPC's don't have stats at all.

So, no, 3d6 in order has not been true for the general population in 3 editions now. I'm not sure what 2e said.