D&D 5E Remember the "3d6 For Stats In Order" Thread? I'm doing it!

[iserith]

I'm guessing this isn't the most serious of campaigns....

D&D is inherently silly in my view and lends itself to leaning into the silliness.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I think you kind of hit it here: all strategies are viable with arrays the system can very well produce. As you point out, it will be rare to see an ideal array for some strategies (and especially multi-classing, which I am fine with). To know how rare would require some analysis. The tuning offered by race plays a big part.

This is based on an analysis I did for 1E a long time ago using 3d6, but includes ability score requirements, social class (from Unearthed Arcana), and alignment restrictions for that edition. (I was much younger then LOL so the numbers might be off a bit... )

Cleric: 1 in 9.33
Druid: 1 in 1,080
Fighter: 1 in 2.5
Barbarian: 1 in 2,000
Ranger: 1 in 3,222
Cavalier: 1 in 10,900
Paladin: 1 in 8,125,300
Magic-Users: 1 in 5.5
Illusionist: 1 in 911
Thief: 1 in 3
Acrobat: 1 in 864
Assassin: 1 in 265
Bard: 1 in 246,425
Monk: 1 in 8,300

The interesting thing in 5E is that there really aren't any minimums, so every set of ability scores is viable for any class (it might rule out multiclassing, however).

So, my question to you is what is an ideal array? And exactly which method: straight 3d6, card method (yours with 2:5, 3:4, 4:4, 5:5), or something else?

 

[Tony Vargas]

The interesting thing in 5E is that there really aren't any minimums, so every set of ability scores is viable for any class

Well, legal. Stat mins in 1e served two functions: they 'balanced' special sub-classes by making them rare (I know that's not really balancing) and they eliminated particularly bad sets of stats - if you had two or more really low stats you might qualify for no class at all, so your get to roll stats again.

It is too bad because lower scores are not only a challenge, but make the character more "believable" to me.

Since 3e put all stats on the same bonus progression stats in the 12-15 range have been more meaningful.

The reason 3d6 worked okay in earlier editions, such as AD&D, was because ability scores weren't tied into things as invasive as they are since 3E and 5E in particular.

High STR, for instance, was very critical to melee, essentially a major fighter class feature required an 18 STR.
A 16 CON would about double your MU's hps. DEX heavily impacted AC and surprise/initiative.

And, 1e's 4 Methods of generation did not include 3d6, in order, one time.

When you consider the normal maximum modifier is +11, and nearly half of that from ability score, is it surprising that players aren't excited when the best they can maybe expect is +8 or +9 unless they forego feats and invest heavily in ASIs?

OK, yes, 5e BA magnifies the impact of high stats, but 5e also caps stats at 20, in 3e or 4e they could flirt with 30.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Since 3e put all stats on the same bonus progression stats in the 12-15 range have been more meaningful.

3E+ also made scores of 7-9 more meaningful as well, but in a negative way. Those are the scores most people complain about when doing 3d6, in order, IME.

High STR, for instance, was very critical to melee, essentially a major fighter class feature required an 18 STR.
A 16 CON would about double your MU's hps. DEX heavily impacted AC and surprise/initiative.

High STR was a boon, not a requirement, as it seems to be in 5E. I've played many fighters (and had others as well) with STR below 18. With magic items being prevalent at many tables, items such as Gauntlets of Ogre Power were more meaningful. In out current 5E game, when we found a set, we gave them to the cleric. Why? Because every battler-type already had a STR 19 or 20! We laughed about it.

A CON 16 will still about double your Wizard's HP in 5E and DEX still heavily impacts AC, surprise, and initiative.

The issue is more about how BA and the +11 normal maximum is impacted A LOT more by ability scores than those things were in 1E.

And, 1e's 4 Methods of generation did not include 3d6, in order, one time.

True, but people used it, and I was simply explaining why when it was used then it wasn't as big an issue if you had more average ability scores.

OK, yes, 5e BA magnifies the impact of high stats, but 5e also caps stats at 20, in 3e or 4e they could flirt with 30.

Sure, but I was not referring to 3E or 4E (never played it). I was simply talking about an edition of D&D when 3d6 in order wasn't a death sentence to making a character.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I was simply talking about an edition of D&D when 3d6 in order wasn't a death sentence to making a character.

That'd be ie.

 

[clearstream]

I would appreciate it if you didn't edit my words when you quote me, especially to the degree you did so. It may make others think I said something I did not say. Kindly Please remove that. Thanks!

That's a fair point and I shall be more mindful next time. What I am pondering is...

Don't lump me in with arguing against a weaker party. In fact, I don't think anyone has done that. The issue is simply that mad classes lose a lot more than single stat classes (or maybe I should say dual stat classes, everyone benefits from a good con)

Once losses that all (intentionally) suffer are removed, to focus on relative losses i.e. overshadowing, and by looking at ability arrays that provably can be generated, I feel like the question becomes one of scarcity, and not weakness.

The deck I'm using is quite flat, so in some respects it advantages MAD classes more than it does one-core-ability classes. It's reasonably likely to have a few decent attributes (albeit all lower than what might be called decent with 4d6k3 or points-buy) and if those land in the right places the monk is as well supported as any other class. It's no worse for them than other chargen options.

 

[clearstream]

This is based on an analysis I did for 1E a long time ago using 3d6, but includes ability score requirements, social class (from Unearthed Arcana), and alignment restrictions for that edition. (I was much younger then LOL so the numbers might be off a bit... )

Cleric: 1 in 9.33
Druid: 1 in 1,080
Fighter: 1 in 2.5
Barbarian: 1 in 2,000
Ranger: 1 in 3,222
Cavalier: 1 in 10,900
Paladin: 1 in 8,125,300
Magic-Users: 1 in 5.5
Illusionist: 1 in 911
Thief: 1 in 3
Acrobat: 1 in 864
Assassin: 1 in 265
Bard: 1 in 246,425
Monk: 1 in 8,300

The interesting thing in 5E is that there really aren't any minimums, so every set of ability scores is viable for any class (it might rule out multiclassing, however).

So, my question to you is what is an ideal array? And exactly which method: straight 3d6, card method (yours with 2:5, 3:4, 4:4, 5:5), or something else?

Indeed, that is the relevant analysis. Or an alternative would be the probability for each array. And your question is of course the apposite one: we'd need to appoint each class an ideal array.

The deck I favour produces lower, flatter arrays, so my guess is that it favours classes like paladins more than 4d6k3, and is either equal or improved over points buy. Where it is less favourable is if a player comes with a burning need to play a paladin and only a paladin: if that is a group's intent then points-buy would be the better option.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Indeed, that is the relevant analysis. Or an alternative would be the probability for each array. And your question is of course the apposite one: we'd need to appoint each class an ideal array.

The deck I favour produces lower, flatter arrays, so my guess is that it favours classes like paladins more than 4d6k3, and is either equal or improved over points buy. Where it is less favourable is if a player comes with a burning need to play a paladin and only a paladin: if that is a group's intent then points-buy would be the better option.

Well, it gets a bit tricky because the cards method is without replacement. However, as I pointed out, since there are no prerequisites for ability scores for classes, any method works just as well as another.

Your card method doesn't favor Paladins over using 4d6k3 or point-buy. Point-buy, for instance, will generate a total of 69 to 75 points for ability scores as where the cards method is 63. Being so much lower means you are less likely to have "viable" (whatever than means for you, me, whoever?) ability scores to play a Paladin, for instance.

Since 4d6k3 is arrange to taste, as is point-buy, you can put your best numbers where you want to make your character good where they "need" to be. The chart shows the probabiliy distribution for both 4d6k3 and cards. You can see the peaks for 4d6k3 is higher, as expected.

Ultimately, the truth is like you say, if someone has a burning desire to play a particular class, the other methods will guarantee it. With the cards method, you play the hand you were dealt.

 

[Blue]

I think players with high-system mastery and an interest in optimising will not choose a sword bard unless they have the stats for it. Thus the situation one may fear in theory-crafting doesn't arise at the table.

Is this like saying that certain classes will become trap options unless the dice are very generous, and those with system mastery will avoid them.

 

[iserith]

With the cards method, you play the hand you were dealt.

Hmm, that line alone as reinforcement for trying to make the best character you can and play as effectively as you can given the draw is almost enough for me to use the draw method sometime.