D&D 5E Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats

[Hussar]

Ahh, but I'm not talking about a somewhat lower primary. I'm talking about bad stats. A 12-14 is a somewhat lower primary. An 11 or lower is a bad stat.

But, what's stopping you from doing that with an array or with point buy? And, again, since we're talking about odds here, the odds that you're going to roll 6 stats ALL below 12 is very, very small. Additionally, that's considered an unplayable character in most editions. You would reroll that character in 1ed and 3e for example. Not sure about 2e and 4e didn't do it that way.

-----------

Stepping back a bit but, it appears to me that this is fundamentally just a riff on the whole rules as physics debate. Do the mechanics model the in-game reality or are they simply tools we use to resolve events? Personally, I favor the latter rather strongly. Mostly because when you try to extrapolate game mechanics into the larger world, all sorts of bizarre discrepancies crop up (10% of your population being physically or mentally challenged as an example from this thread).

I get that there is some differing of opinion on the issue though.

 

[Maxperson]

But, what's stopping you from doing that with an array or with point buy? And, again, since we're talking about odds here, the odds that you're going to roll 6 stats ALL below 12 is very, very small. Additionally, that's considered an unplayable character in most editions. You would reroll that character in 1ed and 3e for example. Not sure about 2e and 4e didn't do it that way.

Again, in practice it almost never happens with point buy or array. Also, no need to roll all 12's or lower. You just have to roll that in your prime stat(s). For most of my gaming for lack of a better word, career, we have taken stat rolls as they fall with no swapping. I've had the 9 or 10 strength fighter, with an 11 con. It happens. When it does, if you play it an do well, you are more skilled as a player than the guy who has a 15 strength and 14 con fighter.

Stepping back a bit but, it appears to me that this is fundamentally just a riff on the whole rules as physics debate. Do the mechanics model the in-game reality or are they simply tools we use to resolve events? Personally, I favor the latter rather strongly. Mostly because when you try to extrapolate game mechanics into the larger world, all sorts of bizarre discrepancies crop up (10% of your population being physically or mentally challenged as an example from this thread).

Two things. First, the game reality can be different than reality. Nobody here is arguing otherwise. Realism is a sliding scale and we all play with it. Only the degree varies. Second, if you use the mechanics to model the game reality or even the game reality with more realism than the base game offers, you just make ruling on the spot to correct those discrepancies when they happen. It's not as if the DM has to go with something bizarre if he doesn't want to.

 

[Lanefan]

The reason we have ability scores is because we need to determine a modifier, up to a +/- 5 or so to add to a D20 to resolve an uncertain event. Since people in the world do not roll a D20 to determine whether they succeed at tasks they do not need or have ability scores until we transform them into a game construct called a "character" and start playing the game.

Of course if your world is just a set of numbers and pawns on a complex chessboard then they may need numbers. But if it's a "real" fantasy world the ability score doesn't matter because their modifier to their D20 roll doesn't matter because there are no D20 rolls.

It's a bit more than just determining a modifier within a +/- 5 range. It's also a way of mechanically differentiating between them and of backing up the narration.

If the DM narrates that the town blacksmith is a bit dim-witted but strong as an ox and for some reason people find him unusually persuasive, that gives a good thumbnail overview of the guy. But there's no frame of reference to place this in - does she mean Str 15, Int 6 and Cha 13 or does she mean Str 18, Int 9 and Cha 16 - and no comparison with the known PCs. I'm not at all saying the DM should rattle off the numbers as part of the narration - ye gods, no! - but that the numbers need to be there to back up the narration. And here's why:

Players come to develop ideas in their own minds of what each stat number might represent. Those ideas may vary from player to player, but that's not the point here. The point is that after a little experience playing the game each player is going to come to an idea of what Charisma 15 - as opposed to 12 or 10 or 7 - represents in his/her imagination. The DM, meanwhile, is also going to have her own ideas.

Where numbers come in handy is to tie these ideas together. Narrating that the blacksmith is uncommonly persuasive given his lack of intelligence might be the DM trying to narrate what she sees as Cha 15 while one player interprets it as Cha 12 and another as Cha 17; and this may well affect their decision as to whether or not to try persuading him to do them a favour. A player might ask "do I think he's more persuasive than Ballad and if yes, by how much?"* and the answer to this - which suddenly forces the blacksmith into a Cha score - puts the blacksmith's Charisma into terms both the DM and players can agree on.

* - the party's Cha 14 Bard

Lan-"strong like mountain - tough like mountain - smart like mountain"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

Stepping back a bit but, it appears to me that this is fundamentally just a riff on the whole rules as physics debate. Do the mechanics model the in-game reality or are they simply tools we use to resolve events? Personally, I favor the latter rather strongly. Mostly because when you try to extrapolate game mechanics into the larger world, all sorts of bizarre discrepancies crop up (10% of your population being physically or mentally challenged as an example from this thread).

I get that there is some differing of opinion on the issue though.

I want there to be some underlying mechanics to the game world; and the game-given mechanics are all there are unless I want to a) develop an entirely different set of mechanics for world-modelling and then b) be stuck with two sets of mechanics all the time - one for PCs and one for everything else. And the messiest part of this is when someone in the game world has reason to suddenly jump from one set of mechanics to the other - say, Macie the barmaid who has always been an average commoner falls in love with Creon the Thief and decides to take up adventuring with him - she's just gone from commoner status to adventurer status. Mechanically - yuck!

So, what I look for are the mechanics that apply to everything and from there determine whether the PCs specifically differ from these and if so how, and by how much.

Your example of 10% of the population being challenged if one uses straight 3d6 to model stats is a good one to use here. The underlying mechanic is a 3-18 bell curve; the general population are on a reasonably tight version of that curve while the PCs are on a looser 3d6 curve probably skewed a little high by using 4d6x1.

Lanefan

 

[Harzel]

You're vanishingly unlikely to roll a random character that has a 13 or less as it's best stat

7.2% - you can decide whether that is vanishingly unlikely or not.

 

[Harzel]

Additionally, die rolled characters will consistently have at least one higher die roll above 15, meaning that most die rolled characters will actually not achieve what it is you are looking for.

56.8% - not sure whether that qualifies as consistently; 'most' is accurate, but just barely.

 

[Harzel]

Most die rolled PC's will have at least one 15 or higher, which will go in that combat stat. It's a pretty rare die rolled character that has no rolls of 15 or higher.

About 79% will have one 15 or better, so 'most' sounds fair. Up to you whether you count 21% as pretty rare.

 

[Harzel]

And, again, since we're talking about odds here, the odds that you're going to roll 6 stats ALL below 12 is very, very small.

0.3% - yeah, very, very small sounds right.

 

[Hussar]

Thanks for the math check [MENTION=6857506]Harzel[/MENTION]. :thumbu:

Oh, and I was in no way trying to imply that there was a right or wrong answer to whether or not you like rules as physics. It's entirely a personal choice. For me, the potential wonkiness just outweighs the benefits. Obviously that's not true for others.

I wonder if group size has any impact here as well. In a fairly small group, say 3 PC's, most of the time those three PC's will be within fairly close tolerances. Sure, one might be a bit higher or lower, but, there likely won't be large disparities most of the time. But, the larger the group gets, the larger the chances become of a greater disparity between high and low, simply because you're rolling more dice.

I play in large groups. We've had 6 PC's pretty consistently for a long time. With that many PC's, having PC's with consistently higher stats really skews game balance. And it becomes more and more difficult to create encounters when you have to account for the fact that the group has so many actions per round AND many of those actions will be more successful than baseline assumptions.

Dunno. Just spit balling here.

 

[Lanefan]

I wonder if group size has any impact here as well. In a fairly small group, say 3 PC's, most of the time those three PC's will be within fairly close tolerances. Sure, one might be a bit higher or lower, but, there likely won't be large disparities most of the time. But, the larger the group gets, the larger the chances become of a greater disparity between high and low, simply because you're rolling more dice.

I play in large groups. We've had 6 PC's pretty consistently for a long time. With that many PC's, having PC's with consistently higher stats really skews game balance. And it becomes more and more difficult to create encounters when you have to account for the fact that the group has so many actions per round AND many of those actions will be more successful than baseline assumptions.

Dunno. Just spit balling here.

Our PC parties are almost always very large by today's standards - usually 6-8 PCs plus an NPC or two plus an occasional hench plus whatever enemies they've been able to charm and convince to tag along as potential damage absorbers and info sources.

Imbalances all over the place, some countered by imbalances the other way, others not.

That said, creating encounters is as easy as dirt: either I or the module I'm running chucks some monsters or opponents at 'em and we see what happens next. In over 30 years I've only had one full TPK (and that was a module encounter run stock that just went sideways) with a couple of other near-misses (one of these was another stock module encounter where they ignored lots of warnings, the other was largely self-inflicted) and that's despite numerous instances of parties knowingly and willingly biting off more than in theory they could chew.

And yes, with big parties do come longer combats; it's an unavoidable side effect.

Lanefan