D&D 5E Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats

[Lanefan]

EDIT: clarified - ogres have a 5 int.

See, here's one of my issues with monster design (all editions) - what they should be saying is that (adult) Ogres have an average intelligence of 5 and a range of, say, 3-8.

As for the main topic:

No one on this forum as stated that "nobody in the entire world can be below an 8" other than you.

If one presumes that PCs and NPCs are at least vaguely built on the same chassis (which would be both consistent and useful) then if the PCs are using a point-buy chassis it's a very short leap to think NPCs are using it also, leading directly to there being no NPC stats below 8.

If, however, one presumes that PCs and NPCs are built using different chassises (or whatever the plural form of chassis is, I've no idea) then even though this might work fine mechanically for game-play reasons it throws internal consistency out the window.

Pick one.

Lan-"people don't walk around in the game world with little 'PC' or 'NPC' stickers on their foreheads"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

65 is 64 more arrays to choose from before arranging than standard array or random give you.

Depends at what stage you're taking that snapshot.

Before I roll any dice I've potentially got a huge boatload of stat lines - the difference being that rather than me making the choice the dice are going to choose one for me.

After I roll the dice then yes, I have only one; though one or two of the methods in the 1e PH might give me a few more to pick from.

 

[Oofta]

See, here's one of my issues with monster design (all editions) - what they should be saying is that (adult) Ogres have an average intelligence of 5 and a range of, say, 3-8.

As for the main topic:
If one presumes that PCs and NPCs are at least vaguely built on the same chassis (which would be both consistent and useful) then if the PCs are using a point-buy chassis it's a very short leap to think NPCs are using it also, leading directly to there being no NPC stats below 8.

If, however, one presumes that PCs and NPCs are built using different chassises (or whatever the plural form of chassis is, I've no idea) then even though this might work fine mechanically for game-play reasons it throws internal consistency out the window.

Pick one.

Lan-"people don't walk around in the game world with little 'PC' or 'NPC' stickers on their foreheads"-efan

The plural of chassis is ... wait for it ... chassis. Yeah, I know. I'm full of **** information.

We know how to build NPCs according to the DMG starting on page 89. Basically "don't bother unless you really care". We don't need to build the entire population so we don't. It goes back to the "what should the distribution be". Even if you take a sample distribution such as IQ, you then still have to decide what percentage needs to be at the extremes. Use the standard cutoff and it's .1%? That works, but it's also completely arbitrary. But no one has stated that all humans use point buy; it's limited to PCs.

Related to that I think the idea that intelligence that applies to other creatures somehow can't be applied to other creatures is wrong. There are studies all the time about how smart various apes are (according to the DMG, that would be 4) and how to measure intelligence of other animals such as dogs (3). Intelligence is nebulous, but it is a universal concept. If we're going to assign a number to it, it only makes sense that the same scale applies to all creatures. We know that the average ogre can only speak a few words and has a hard time counting to 10. We know that traditionally orcs are dim-witted (although not downright stupid like ogres) and are generally represented as having a limited rough vocabulary.

On the other end of the spectrum we know the average mind flayer is highly intellectual, even brilliant as is reflected by their 19 intelligence.

 

[Hriston]

If I pick the standard array, I have picked those numbers. They are impossible to place on my sheet without picking them.

By that measure, by electing to roll, you have "picked" whatever numbers result.

 

[Arial Black]

Variety adds to realism. I'll give you that.

When playing Monopoly (a typical board game) no-one expects you to create an alternate character to role-play, and wonder if the particular capitalist pig you are playing this time is the kind of guy who would bulldoze four houses and evict the poor tenants just to build a luxury hotel for the bourgeoisie!

You are not playing a character; you are you, trying to win a boardgame according to the rules of that game.

Part of the rules of that game are that each player starts with the same amount of money. No-one expects to have a random roll to see how much money they start with, because realism has absolutely nothing to do with the game.

The 'move rate' for each piece is 2d6. Why can't the car go faster than the old boot? Because you are not pretending to be a car or a boot! They are meaningless playing pieces.

But if we were DMs trying to create a believable world in which to have adventures, then it would be totally unbelievable for each person to have the exact same amount of money. That every entrepreneur has to receive the exact same 'starting' cash from Daddy (as if everyone 'starts' at the same time!), and their natural talents are divinely mandated to be equal.

So we have a spectrum: at one end is the 'just a game, therefore everything must start equal' attitude of a mere boardgame. On the other end is the 'reality sim' attitude.

Since our hobby is both 'role-playing in an imaginary world' AND 'a game', then we each have to decide where our table is on that spectrum, and we have different tastes.

For those of us who hold 'realism' as more important than 'only a game', then 'realism' is more important than 'fairness' in character generation. Therefore, rolling is more attractive than point-buy or standard array.

For those of us who hold 'only a game' as a higher priority than 'realism', then a fair/balanced PC generation system is more attractive than one with realistic variation. Therefore, rolling is less attractive.

One reason that this thread is so long is that human nature leads us to treat the way we like things as the way things should be, and find it weird when we see people making the opposite choice. I see people who treat RPGs like a board game and my knee-jerk reaction is that they are having fun wrong. I don't get it. It seems to me like they are throwing away the best part of this extraordinary hobby just so that they can play a rather complex boardgame, whereas right-thinking people like me get the best of gaming AND role-playing in a believable world.

Of course, I realise that it's okay for other people to like different things. But I still don't get why they want those particular things.

 

[Arial Black]

You're misreading that.

I don't think so. Here it is again:-

"NON-PLAYER CHARACTERS
Non-Player Characters: You should, of course, set the ability scores of those NPCs you will use as parts of the milieu, particularly those of high level and power. Scores for high level NPC's must be high - how else could these figures have risen so high? Determine the ability scores of other non-player characters as follows.

General Characters: Roll 3d6 for each ability score as usual, but use average scoring by consider any 1 as a3 and any 6 as a 4.

Special Characters, including Henchmen: Roll 3d6 as for general characters, but allow the full range (3-18) except in the abilities which are germane to his or her profession, i.e. strength for fighters, etc. For all such abilities either use on of the determination methods used for player characters or add +1 to each die of the 3 rolled which scores under a 6."

Both 'general characters' AND 'special characters' ARE 'the general population'! Every guard, sage, hedge wizard etc. may need stats which reflect their areas of expertise, but they are not some distinct species! The only people who aren't the 'general population' in this context are the adventurers themselves.

To this end, as a DM tool the '3d-average' is a cheaty way to get nondescript NPCs, in exactly the same way as methods I to VI are cheaty ways to get the extraordinary scores typical of PCs. Not because they are a different species, but to save us the trouble of rolling twenty or thirty sets of stats on 3d6 in order until we roll a set that is good enough to be an adventurer. The 3d-average just saves the DM the trouble of rolling until he comes up with a nondescript enough set.

Remember, the section starts with the advice that the DM should just set the NPC scores! But how high or low should he set them? high or low compared to what?

That's right: high or low compared to the background assumption of the 3d6 bell curve!

As always, there are two kinds of people:-

1.) those who can extrapolate from incomplete information

 

[FarBeyondC]

See, here's one of my issues with monster design (all editions) - what they should be saying is that (adult) Ogres have an average intelligence of 5 and a range of, say, 3-8.

I've always assumed that listed stats were the average stats for anything that wasn't an named/unique creature. Stat ranges doesn't seem like a bad idea, though- even if I would prefer a more templated approach.

If one presumes that PCs and NPCs are at least vaguely built on the same chassis (which would be both consistent and useful) then if the PCs are using a point-buy chassis it's a very short leap to think NPCs are using it also, leading directly to there being no NPC stats below 8.

If, however, one presumes that PCs and NPCs are built using different chassises (or whatever the plural form of chassis is, I've no idea) then even though this might work fine mechanically for game-play reasons it throws internal consistency out the window.

Pick one.

Alternatively, all creatures are 'built' on the same chassis (i.e. 3d6 + any relevant modifiers), and a given DM only allows players to play as those creatures that fall within certain, more restrictive, guidelines (i.e. stats limited by what point buy- or whatever stat generation system is being used- allows; races, classes, and backgrounds as accepted by the dm in question, etc.).

It's less that the creatures are being built in different ways and more that players are being limited in what they can choose from everything that exists.

At least, that's how I see it.

 

[Maxperson]

By that measure, by electing to roll, you have "picked" whatever numbers result.

Come on man. You quite literally can't be picking numbers since there are no numbers in existence when you pick the rolling method. The numbers come AFTER you have picked, and you have no control over them.

Edit:removed a comment

 

[Hriston]

See, here's one of my issues with monster design (all editions) - what they should be saying is that (adult) Ogres have an average intelligence of 5 and a range of, say, 3-8.

You seem to be forgetting that AD&D does pretty much just that with its monster intelligence ratings. An ogre, for example, has a low intelligence, corresponding to a score-range of 5-7. The average ogre's intelligence can be extrapolated from there, if necessary. Most of the normal men in the MM are explicitly given a mean-value intelligence of average to very, corresponding to an average human range of 8-12.

However, the fifth edition has actually gone further in the direction to which you're objecting. Instead of normal human commoners having an INT of 6-15 as they do in AD&D, in the current edition a humanoid commoner has an INT of 10 plus racial modifier. As a DM, I adjust that for profession. A merchant, for example, would have a minimum INT of 12 in one of my games.

 

[Oofta]

For those of us who hold 'realism' as more important than 'only a game', then 'realism' is more important than 'fairness' in character generation. Therefore, rolling is more attractive than point-buy or standard array.

For those of us who hold 'only a game' as a higher priority than 'realism', then a fair/balanced PC generation system is more attractive than one with realistic variation. Therefore, rolling is less attractive.

I get where you're coming from, I just disagree. The numbers we attach to our characters are an abstraction, just like AC or HP. It's a simplification of what my character is.

My character isn't a half-orc champion fighter with a 16 strength, he's Bob the Butcher. While he's ok with an intimidating name and reputation, and uses it occasionally but he really gets his name from his humble beginnings. His father was a butcher and when orcs invaded in the year 619 he grabbed a cleaver and fearlessly took on the horde and became a folk hero. His big secret is that he was really just being chased by hornets and didn't know the orcs were there... and so on and so forth.

Just about the least important thing about Bob are his ability scores outside of a meta-game perspective. It is only when you look at Bob as a glorified chess piece* that you detect the lack of variation or "realism".

Besides, since you can make 65 different arrays from point buy and arrange them in any way you want getting over 200 unique character builds (I haven't done the exact math, there are 390 possible permutations but a lot will be duplicates).

*We lost the race car for our Monopoly set. I did not take it out to play with it and then proceed to lose it in a sand pile. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.