D&D 5E Ability Score Increases (I've changed my mind.)

[Chaosmancer]

No it wasn't. It wasn't even part of my point. You don't get to tell me what my point is.

This is a Strawman. You don't get to alter my point and then argue your created fiction and still have a valid argument.

I haven't altered your point. You used an extreme example of cheating to try and make a comparison that does not exist.

Nope. I find it less realistic.

Which is less appealing to you, yeah, I know what we are talking about.

And that's wrong. I've seen people(one or two and no I don't remember who) talking about gestalt PCs for 5th edition. It's not many, but it's higher than "no one."

Then it isn't an absolute, not like I intended it as an absolute as much as it was typing 10 minutes before work and not having time to legal-proof my points while you back-pedal and twist around to try and make me out as unreasonable here.

The must be an imbalance between classes. Perfect balance is an impossibility if you don't want to give every class the same exact abilities. It's the same with races as well.

And a lack of perfect balance does not mean the same as imbalance, especially when you take one of the classes considered one of the worst because of how poorly designed their abilities and compare it with one generally considered the best. Additionally, asymmetric balance is still balance, not imbalance.

I'm not talking about modern flat earthers. I'm talking about well in the past before the better techniques arrived. And it's not just flat earthers. Humans have gotten things wrong as a whole quite a bit.

Well, you should have been more specific. And when we have a DnD scientific revolution and better tools to analyze the game, I will call you up to try and prove your theories in a peer reviewed journal.

But, funnily enough, humans have also gotten a lot of things right. So, saying that the analyzing of knowledge can be flawed, while true, is kind of a moot point unless you can point to why the analysis is flawed. And currently your only argument is "but the designer's wouldn't do that." which is pretty weak in the face "looks like they did, here's the math"

A coin flip is not the same. If rolling rarely produces a the array, it's not equivalent to the array. The array adds up to 72. Here are the totals for those 10 rolls. Note how not a single one equaled the array.

1: 76
2: 76
3: 86
4: 74
5: 80
6: 56
7: 81
8: 74
9: 81
10: 75

You did realize that when I said the 4 and 8 had a total of 74 and 10 had a total of 75 that I had... done this exact same analysis, and gotten these exact same results. Right?

Also, coin flips are probabilities. The classic example of a coin being heads or tells is meant to demonstrate the need for a large number of trials. I would think you were aware of that comparison, which is why I didn't go into too much detail. The exact same process is at work here.

Wait! So 0 out of 10 are equivalent and only 30% are even close, and I'm strengthening your claim that the two methods are equal?!

Fully 50% are wildly off with 86, 80, 81, 81, and 56. 20% are just off with 76 and 76. And 30% are somewhat off with the numbers you show.

Yes, because the sheer range of values and how close they got.

Rolling 4d6d1 six times produces a mathematical total between 18 (3/3/3/3/3/3) and 108 (18/18/18/18/18/18). This is a massive range of numbers, but the average is close to 72. It isn't exact, the actual mathematical value of the average is 74 (16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 9) but, again, the designer wanted to avoid that 16, so they lowered that and the 9 to ensure you'd have a -1 stat.

Now, with 10 (miniscule sample size) rolls, you produced 5 results that were within a point or two of the real average, and within 4 points of the Standard array. Again, this is an equivalent of throwing blind at a dartboard and getting in the inner ring. Did you get a bullseye? No, but expecting to get a single exact match when you have so many different possibilities and so few examples? That is ludicrous. It was never going to happen.

So, yes, your example strengthens my position, not because I expected an exact result, because it was random rolls. But even with only 10 random rolls we got very close half the time. Because that's the average, that is the place we expect to see the most results landing.

 

[Helldritch]

Where is this leading? Are you volunteering to DM for every group in the world in exchange for keeping ASIs fixed?

But in general you are correct: I do not include the DMing style of specific, individual DMs as a factor when analyzing the math of game design.

If only I could...
But for the mathematical aspect, the DM is the most determining factor of all.
If we use fixed ASI (as my players prefer, with 11 votes out of twelve, 1 abstention, mine) and one character is not using optimal character build, I will try to put something to give this character a fighting chance to shine like all the others.

If we use rolling, then I will try to help out the weakest character (rolled poorly, but was on the "acceptable" side). Again, just because I really want every single character to shine during a campaign.

I still have not shown Max's way of rolling but I will.

For floating ASI.
This has so far, not been a problem at my table as almost all players prefer fixed ASI. But with floating ASI, it wouldn't be necessary to nudge the odds in favor of one character over the others. Which in a certain way kinda remove partially the DM's fiat. But this has the downside that the DM will not manipulate events in favor of a weaker or unlucky character as since everyone is equal, then rolls would be taken as is. No tweaking of treasure. You get what was rolled. Nothing more, and certainly nothing less.

In effect, the floating ASI remove the possibility of playing the underdog. A play style that I really like but do not see that often. When everyone is "special" no one is.

 

[Garthanos]

In effect, the floating ASI remove the possibility of playing the underdog. A play style that I really like but do not see that often. When everyone is "special" no one is.

sigh a villains quote...

 

[Maxperson]

I haven't altered your point. You used an extreme example of cheating to try and make a comparison that does not exist.

You've done nothing but alter my point. My point isn't what you want to make it into.

Which is less appealing to you, yeah, I know what we are talking about.

Doesn't matter. The reason is not lack of appeal. The reason is less realism. Let's put it this way. I wouldn't like my house to be damaged. Damaged isn't necessarily the reason, though. Fire OR tornado would be the reason. So when I tell you that I don't want my house to burn down, don't try to tell me that my reason is that I don't want my house to be damaged. I'm specifying fire for a reason. I can't stand the smell of smoke and would rather deal with wet than fire.

Then it isn't an absolute, not like I intended it as an absolute as much as it was typing 10 minutes before work and not having time to legal-proof my points while you back-pedal and twist around to try and make me out as unreasonable here.

I was just pointing out that I've seen them. I didn't twist your words.

And a lack of perfect balance does not mean the same as imbalance, especially when you take one of the classes considered one of the worst because of how poorly designed their abilities and compare it with one generally considered the best. Additionally, asymmetric balance is still balance, not imbalance.

It's funny how one of the worst(ranger) is one that I've seen played the most and to good effect. As I've said before, 5e is very forgiving of "low" numbers like 14 and rangers. You can still be good with them. Not passable. Not viable. GOOD. Higher numbers just make you very good or great.

But, funnily enough, humans have also gotten a lot of things right. So, saying that the analyzing of knowledge can be flawed, while true, is kind of a moot point unless you can point to why the analysis is flawed. And currently your only argument is "but the designer's wouldn't do that." which is pretty weak in the face "looks like they did, here's the math"

And your current argument is that some players have guessed at the hidden math and agreed that they are correct. Neither of us has a solid position here.

You did realize that when I said the 4 and 8 had a total of 74 and 10 had a total of 75 that I had... done this exact same analysis, and gotten these exact same results. Right?

Yep. And it was 3, not 4. 0 of which are equal to the array.

Also, coin flips are probabilities. The classic example of a coin being heads or tells is meant to demonstrate the need for a large number of trials. I would think you were aware of that comparison, which is why I didn't go into too much detail. The exact same process is at work here.

It takes far fewer to see the average at work with a single 50/50 flip being the test. When it's 6 numbers with a 3-18 range determined by 4 dice, dropping the lowest, it's just not the same thing. You're comparing a firecracker to a bomb and saying they're the same because both explode.

Rolling 4d6d1 six times produces a mathematical total between 18 (3/3/3/3/3/3) and 108 (18/18/18/18/18/18). This is a massive range of numbers, but the average is close to 72. It isn't exact, the actual mathematical value of the average is 74 (16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 9) but, again, the designer wanted to avoid that 16, so they lowered that and the 9 to ensure you'd have a -1 stat.

You're guessing at these things again. No matter how you slice it, though, the array is not equal to rolling. In fact, since the bolded portion is true, then you're saying that even the averages of the two are not equal. You've helped my argument.

Now, with 10 (miniscule sample size) rolls, you produced 5 results that were within a point or two of the real average, and within 4 points of the Standard array. Again, this is an equivalent of throwing blind at a dartboard and getting in the inner ring. Did you get a bullseye? No, but expecting to get a single exact match when you have so many different possibilities and so few examples? That is ludicrous. It was never going to happen.

10 rolls is two entire campaigns for a group with 5 players and a DM. If we take the rolling average of 74, 2 rolls hit that average and 8 did not. That's an 80% failure rate. If I did 10 more(two more entire campaigns of characters) do you think I'd get different results?

So, yes, your example strengthens my position, not because I expected an exact result, because it was random rolls. But even with only 10 random rolls we got very close half the time. Because that's the average, that is the place we expect to see the most results landing.

Your position is equality and my example blows your position out of the water. Your argument that the two methods have different averages just enhances my position, even though you don't have proof of the designer intent you are claiming.

 

[Bill Zebub]

In effect, the floating ASI remove the possibility of playing the underdog. A play style that I really like but do not see that often. When everyone is "special" no one is.

If somebody wants to play the underdog can’t you just make sure they don’t get any magic items?

I jest, but with a point.

 

[Helldritch]

If somebody wants to play the underdog can’t you just make sure they don’t get any magic items?

I jest, but with a point.

Yes, but what would be the point of it?
I am not the kind of DM that will try to punish players for some arbitrary reason. My games are already as hard as they can be right now. No need to add more difficulty by removing magic items. In fact, if there were no magic items, I might consider floating ASI. But since we have them, I see no point to have these except for power gaming.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Yes, but what would be the point of it?
I am not the kind of DM that will try to punish players for some arbitrary reason. My games are already as hard as they can be right now. No need to add more difficulty by removing magic items. In fact, if there were no magic items, I might consider floating ASI. But since we have them, I see no point to have these except for power gaming.

It wouldn’t be punishing them if they want to play the underdog.

You previously offered an equivalence between ASIs and magic items, with the explanation (if I understood it correctly) that it’s ok if the rules don’t allow players to create exactly the character they want (numerically, that is) because you, as DM, can fine tune things with magic items.

So doesn’t that work both ways? If it’s not possible to play the underdog with floating ASIs (which, honestly, I still don’t understand, but let’s pretend for a moment that I do) then you can just make them the underdog, relative to other players, through your control over magic items.

 

[Garthanos]

A long while back I played a game called Stormbringer the potency of a starting character could be vastly variable it was a bit like one person was level 10 starting out and another was level 1... all dependent on dice rolling during character creation. I seen it happen twice for real one player generated a melnibonean high ranking sorcerer another a smith with 99 percentiles of attack skill and 89 parrying with a weapon they make. This is not like D&D though so even the superhero could be killed with a good/bad roll.

It wouldn’t be punishing them if they want to play the underdog.

You previously offered an equivalence between ASIs and magic items, with the explanation (if I understood it correctly) that it’s ok if the rules don’t allow players to create exactly the character they want (numerically, that is) because you, as DM, can fine tune things with magic items.

I tried giving the player of the ummm everyman character in that Stormbringer campaign a magic artifact that would only work for him it was a Chaos lord celebrating topsy turvy the only one who could impress it had to be effectively humble and meek the opposite of most Daemon items in the game. and my attempt failed... It needed to give him bloody regeneration or extra parries periodically or something.

 

[Maxperson]

If somebody wants to play the underdog can’t you just make sure they don’t get any magic items?

I jest, but with a point.

The game is balanced around not having magic items. They don't become an underdog without items. They're just not pumped up even higher in an already easy game.

 

[Maxperson]

A long while back I played a game called Stormbringer the potency of a starting character could be vastly variable it was a bit like one person was level 10 starting out and another was level 1... all dependent on dice rolling during character creation. I seen it happen twice for real one player generated a melnibonean high ranking sorcerer another a smith with 99 percentiles of attack skill and 89 parrying with a weapon they make. This is not like D&D though so even the superhero could be killed with a good/bad roll.

I remember that game! I played it once and ended up with a Pan Tang sorcerer. I bound some minor demons and elementals and tore through things.