D&D 5E Assumptions about character creation

[Lanefan]

We played a short-run game a while back where everything in chargen was randomized: ability scores, race, subrace, class, subclass, proficiencies, and background. It was...kind of a blast! It's a fun experiment that I highly recommend.

We did this a few years back for a drunken New Years Eve game - and sure enough, I ended up with almost the same character I was playing in the main game at the time.

 

[Hriston]

If you roll 18 intelligence, a gnome will be a better choice for a wizard than an orc, due to the +2 Int binging you up to 20. If you roll a 12 intelligence, a gnome will be a better choice for a wizard than an orc, due to the +2 Intelligence bringing you up to 14. In either case, the gnome is the better choice if you play a wizard.

EDIT: Sorry, I misread you initially. Yes, it is possible for an orc wizard to end up with a higher intelligence than a gnome wizard if you choose race and class first and then roll in order (for some reason). But, gonme would still always be a better choice than orc for a wizard in that case, because the racial +2 means you will have a better chance of getting a higher total Int score as a gnome.

You don’t have to roll in order. Arrays produced by rolling are divergent enough that they could have fairly iniquitous high scores. The gnome in my example got a 12, while the orc got an 18, so the orc ended up being a better choice. Of course, you don’t know what you’re going to roll, and you’re choice of race has no influence on your roll, so I agree that choosing gnome is a better form of insurance if you want to play a wizard.

 

[Charlaquin]

You don’t have to roll in order. Arrays produced by rolling are divergent enough that they could have fairly iniquitous high scores. The gnome in my example got a 12, while the orc got an 18, so the orc ended up being a better choice. Of course, you don’t know what you’re going to roll, and you’re choice of race has no influence on your roll, so I agree that choosing gnome is a better form of insurance if you want to play a wizard.

The orc wasn’t a better choice though. The player happened to roll a higher int, but that had nothing to do with the choice to play an orc. If they had chosen to play a gnome, they would be a better wizard.

The only scenario I can see where some races aren’t objectively better choices for certain classes than others is one where you either determine race randomly (in which case you don’t get a choice) or if you first choose a race, then roll stats in order, then choose a class. Yes, in that case you might choose orc, end up with a high int roll, and decide to play a wizard. But if you choose your class first and then assign stats, or if you roll stats first and then choose a race, gnome will always be a better race choice for a wizard than orc.

 

[Don Durito]

The only scenario I can see where some races aren’t objectively better choices for certain classes than others is one where you either determine race randomly (in which case you don’t get a choice) or if you first choose a race, then roll stats in order, then choose a class. Yes, in that case you might choose orc, end up with a high int roll, and decide to play a wizard. But if you choose your class first and then assign stats, or if you roll stats first and then choose a race, gnome will always be a better race choice for a wizard than orc.

It probably should work that way for consistencies sake.

Or even better like WFRP and you roll your race on a percentage table based on how common they are.

If we insist on rolling ability scores, why are we even letting people choose their race?

 

[billd91]

The orc wasn’t a better choice though. The player happened to roll a higher int, but that had nothing to do with the choice to play an orc.

I think that's part of Hriston's point. That orc, the one who rolled an 18 for his Intelligence, is a better wizard than the gnome who rolled a 12.

 

[R_J_K75]

If you use treasure hordes as-written or parcel out magic items according to the guidelines in Xanathar’s Guide, PCs will keep pace with the expected average 65% chance to hit creatures of appropriate CR (assuming they start with a +3 in their prime stat and increase at 4th and 8th). If you hand out more or fewer magic items than this expectation, PCs might get as high as an 80% chance to hit or as low as a 50% chance to hit on average (again, assuming opponents of appropriate CR for their level.) In other words, no, PCs don’t need magic items to remain effective, but they’ll have a bit harder time of things if they don’t get at least a few. By the same token, if they get tons of magic items they’ll have an easier time, but they will never get to the point that nothing threatens them. The game expects the DM to use their own best judgment and adjust challenges to match the PCs’ capabilities.

65% seems like alot but then again I really have no clue how that compares to previous editions. Im starting a new game tomorrow night maybe I'll try and loosely keep track.

 

[Don Durito]

65% seems like alot but then again I really have no clue how that compares to previous editions. Im starting a new game tomorrow night maybe I'll try and loosely keep track.

I believe, but may be wrong, that 4E was built around 55%.

I'm not sure other editions had any clear assumptions about the accuracy maths.
(Certainly there was none of the same uniformity across classes).

 

[R_J_K75]

If you give players access to a spread off +3 armors and weapons across their 20 levels of gameplay, they will slowly but steadily wreck everything they come across within an increasing level range. A relative difference of +3 to accuracy is like the difference between a level 5 character and a level 17 character.

Bounded Accuracy isn't the only factor, though. HP bloat and the proliferation of free healing mean that it takes dozens of hits before anyone falls in combat, and the disparity of accuracy is only overwhelming over the course of several rounds.

Never got too high of levels maybe 8th is the highest but even then I wasnt giving out tons of magic items and they were steamrolling pretty much everything.

 

[R_J_K75]

I believe, but may be wrong, that 4E was built around 55%.

I'm not sure other editions had any clear assumptions about the accuracy maths.
(Certainly there was none of the same uniformity across classes).

Seems up through 3.x players were screwed without magical items.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Seems up through 3.x players were screwed without magical items.

Prior to 3.x, there were no expectations for what magical items you should find, but there were also no expectations for what monsters you should be fighting. You could be perfectly fine without any magical items, or completely outclassed while wearing +5 gear, depending on what you were going against. Balance was not something they were trying to control, from a design perspective.

Both 3.x and 4E tried to achieve balance by controlling both the magic item economy and the encounter guidelines, with varying success.

It's only 5E which puts forth encounter guidelines, and then completely ignores the effect of magic items, resulting in numbers that aren't useful in most cases.