D&D 5E Point buy vs roll

[Parmandur]

I play pretty much just with close friends. Doesn't mean cheating doesn't happen. One felt it was cooporative game, so he's not cheating the other players and was "keeping the DM in line". Another liked feats so always made sure his attack/DC stat was a 20 after racial so he could just take them. Another was really afraid of her character dying and would always have a great CON (and therefore her prime ability above it) and never seemed to roll low on HPs. Another like "good stories" and would regularly cheat on d20 rolls to "make that happen".

Jeez-a-loo.

I mean, they are only cheating themselves. No system can fix that sort of thing longterm...because it won't stay in character creation.

 

[Blue]

Never heard anyone question it, outside of the Internet, nor observed any problems st the table across q6 years and multiple editions now.

I suppose, thinking on it, that we probably used the array when I made my two 4E characters. Didn't impress me as better, apparently.

Never seen Feats in play (in 5E). Once my brother-in-law excitedly emphasized thst he would allow Feats in a campaign he put together, but nobody took him up on the offer.

Never seen it play out that way.

Great, your personal experience has not seen differences in character power. Math however says that significant differences in the prime ability modifier of the best and worst in the party will exist a good amount of the time.

In other words, regardless if you personally have had it happen in your groups and then observed it, it is still true.

 

[Parmandur]

Great, your personal experience has not seen differences in character power. Math however says that significant differences in the prime ability modifier of the best and worst in the party will exist a good amount of the time.

In other words, regardless if you personally have had it happen in your groups and then observed it, it is still true.

I mean, the exact number will make a difference, but on average a rolled character will be on par with a point buy one, that's the aggregate math which has stood up over time in practice.

 

[Maxperson]

So one minute of rolling should affect the next several years of the campaign?

I find that ludicrous.

There are plenty of reasonable arguments for rolled - I prefer it in the older editions. But that's not one of them.

One minute!? My players invest heavily in their rolling. They take turns rolling strength, then constitution, etc. They'll compliment each other or say, "Wow, that sucks!" to good rolls and bad ones. Pause in the middle to ask each other what they have so far. One guy when he gets to his prime stat will rattle them around for like 15 seconds before rolling, often stopping if he doesn't "feel it" and change dice. I'm lucky if I can get him to roll his prime stat in 1 minute. Stat rolling for the 4 of them is at 20-30 minutes.

 

[Parmandur]

One minute!? My players invest heavily in their rolling. They take turns rolling strength, then constitution, etc. They'll compliment each other or say, "Wow, that sucks!" to good rolls and bad ones. Pause in the middle to ask each other what they have so far. One guy when he gets to his prime stat will rattle them around for like 15 seconds before rolling, often stopping if he doesn't "feel it" and change dice. I'm lucky if I can get him to roll his prime stat in 1 minute. Stat rolling for the 4 of them is at 20-30 minutes.

Yeah, all part of the fun of discovery.

 

[Maxperson]

Great, your personal experience has not seen differences in character power. Math however says that significant differences in the prime ability modifier of the best and worst in the party will exist a good amount of the time.

Math says that, yes, but math is deceiving. In 5e you only really need +2 in your prime stat to do well and everything after that is just a bit of gravy. It doesn't matter to me in the slightest if I start at 14 and you at 18, because your +4 won't impact my ability to do well, contribute meaningfully, and have lots of fun.

 

[Parmandur]

Math says that, yes, but math is deceiving. In 5e you only really need +2 in your prime stat to do well and everything after that is just a bit of gravy. It doesn't matter to me in the slightest if I start at 14 and you at 18, because your +4 won't impact my ability to do well, contribute meaningfully, and have lots of fun.

Yup: the multiclass variant in the PHB and SRD lays out what is needed for a character to be perfectly efficient each Class, in terms of Ability scores. Anything more is a bonus, not necessary.

 

[Parmandur]

For the record,, this ia all thst is needed to be effective in each Class, from the SRD:

Class	Ability Score Minimum
Barbarian	Strength 13
Bard	Charisma 13
Cleric	Wisdom 13
Druid	Wisdom 13
Fighter	Strength 13 or Dexterity 13
Monk	Dexterity 13 and Wisdom 13
Paladin	Strength 13 and Charisma 13
Ranger	Dexterity 13 and Wisdom 13
Rogue	Dexterity 13
Sorcerer	Charisma 13
Warlock	Charisma 13
Wizard	Intelligence 13

 

[Oofta]

It's true that it's one of the drawbacks of really unbalanced stats if the DM does not make sure to compensate (and once more this is not an inherent flaw of any system, there are so many sources of unbalance between characters - if only due to the players themselves - that there WILL be unbalance and it's the DM's job to deal with it, hopefully with the players' help as well if they are mature about that).

If the DM has to compensate (which I've never seen no matter how much disparity there is) doesn't that indicate a problem?

 

[Parmandur]

If the DM has to compensate (which I've never seen no matter how much disparity there is) doesn't that indicate a problem?

Compensate is a strong word: Taormina challenges to the party is more like it. Which is always going to he true.