D&D 5E Array v 4d6: Punishment? Or overlooked data

[Lanefan]

I would also note that these are actually pretty good stats, 17 strength and 16 con with nothing below a 9? These are not bad. I've seen PCs that had a single 14, a 12 and everything else well below 10 after racial adjustments. Meanwhile someone else at the table had 2 18s and nothing below a 12. The disparity was obvious.

Was it?

IME, and backed by loads of data gathered over a very long time, starting stats make only minimal difference in the long-term or even medium-term survivability of a character. In fairness, this is in a 1e variant; 5e might be different given the linear bonus structure it uses (which IMO is a flaw of the linear bonus structure, but - sadly - WotC seem to have locked into that system).

 

[Sacrosanct]

Along with the rest of the PCs not standing up for their fair share of the treasure; and your example is exactly why I so greatly dislike treasury systems that don't reward each PC equally (i.e. by evaluating everything and then dividing by total value): inevitably - be it by chance, intention, or whatever - one PC ends up with all the good stuff.

It was one of my chief complaints with 1e RAW (although easily remedied): The random magic items. It was quite easy for the dice to land where one PC was just the best fit for any particular magic item and others got left out. Speaking of magic items...

Was it?

IME, and backed by loads of data gathered over a very long time, starting stats make only minimal difference in the long-term or even medium-term survivability of a character. In fairness, this is in a 1e variant; 5e might be different given the linear bonus structure it uses (which IMO is a flaw of the linear bonus structure, but - sadly - WotC seem to have locked into that system).

I agree, largely because of magic items. If you look at Merdock, he had gauntlets of ogre power. That (and belts of giant strength) made your str score moot, and they were available pretty early on. Granted, it's been probably 30 years since I played him, but I want to say he had that by level 3 or 4. There are similar items for other stats as well, and folks need to remember that unlike 3e on, there weren't universal stat bonuses for each stat. A wizard with an INT 16 wasn't all that more effective than one with an INT 14 during actual combat.

 

[Oofta]

Was it?

IME, and backed by loads of data gathered over a very long time, starting stats make only minimal difference in the long-term or even medium-term survivability of a character. In fairness, this is in a 1e variant; 5e might be different given the linear bonus structure it uses (which IMO is a flaw of the linear bonus structure, but - sadly - WotC seem to have locked into that system).

Depends on the version of the game. Later versions ability scores make more of a difference. But yeah, having a cleric that couldn't wear heavy armor or carry much of anything (strength too low) with a +2 bonus to DCs and only +1 to con? With negatives to all their other ssves and skills? Versus a barbarian with 18 strength, 18 con, 16 dex while still having the same wisdom and a plus to every save? It's noticeable.

On the other hand, most campaigns don't share your level of lethality.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Depends on the version of the game. Later versions ability scores make more of a difference. But yeah, having a cleric that couldn't wear heavy armor or carry much of anything (strength too low) with a +2 bonus to DCs and only +1 to con? With negatives to all their other ssves and skills? Versus a barbarian with 18 strength, 18 con, 16 dex while still having the same wisdom and a plus to every save? It's noticeable.

On the other hand, most campaigns don't share your level of lethality.

In 1e? magic armor negated weight, and an 8 STR didn't confer any penalty to weight allowance. so a cleric with an 8 STR is still perfectly viable, especially if they had their highest stat in WIS (which they should!) because they got bonus spells. And that makes much more of a difference at lower levels than a stat variance does.

 

[Wyckedemus]

I've seen this creep up in various places over the past couple of days, where there is an argument being presented that players are being punished for not doing the 4d6 method of stat gen as opposed to array (or point buy). I don't find that a very strong argument, and hopefully I can explain why.

Note: I didn't provide the formula for the exact odds of rolling X stat Y number of times for 6 stats. that's pretty darn cumbersome, and I think the sample size below can illustrate the point clearly enough and be a good enough sample size to show how things average out. funny enough the average stat total in this example is the same as the array at the bottom (72 points)

reason #1: The most obvious reason why I disagree with the presented argument is that "punished" is being used incorrectly. That's not what punishment means. You aren't being punished by choosing to use array and the person next to you uses 4d6 and ends up with a higher stat. Just like you aren't being punished by investing your money in a reliable and predicable IRA when the guy next to you hits it big on a put option.

reason #2: what seems to be overlooked in all of these arguments is that while you do have a better chance of getting a high stat (after all, any chance at 16+ is better than array since you can't get higher than 15), you also have a chance of getting lower than an 8, or more than 1 stat with a penalty. Also something that is impossible with array. See the illustration below. I ran 15 sets of stats at 4d6 drop lowest. Green cells are those that are better than you can get as opposed to array. Red are those that are worse than array. Yes, there are more green than red, but that does not mean the player who used array is being punished. It's all about risk assessment. Because in this sample size, there are PCs who are significantly worse off than if they used array. And it seems odd to me that if the presented argument is assumed to be true, then the player who used array with higher stats is being punished compared to the player who rolled randomly and got worse stats

Really, this entire discussion is not about punishment. No one is getting punished. It's 100% about "if you take a risk, you may end up better than a guarantee. Or worse." Any argument presented as one of punishment, IMO of course, is a disingenuous one meant to cover up sour grapes. And for those who have said they will suicide their PCs if they don't roll a 17 (which has happened)? Thank God you don't pay at my table because I would ask you to leave. That's behavior* I see out of toddlers, not adults.

View attachment 64537



*or as I call it, the "Jimmy got a bigger piece of cake than me, not fair!"

I like rolling dice. However I don't like purely random stat generation that creates gulfs of aptitude between PCs. Because of this I developed a team-based group stat generation method that lets my groups enjoy rolling dice to generate random arrays that also allows them to be equitable with one another.

I'll explain it with an example. Let's assume a 4-player group for this exercise.
1. All 4 players and the DM each roll the agreed upon stat generation method to generate a total of 5 possible arrays. We record these arrays for future reference (like if a new player joins, or a PC dies and new PC is introduced).
2. All players get to choose from any of the resulting 5 stat arrays, which are not exclusive. If one stands out above the others, everyone can choose it if they want. But if there is more than 1 that is valid for different builds, some players may pick different arrays that better fit their concept.
3. If they don't like any of the arrays, they can choose the standard array/point-buy.

For most campaigns I prefer the 3d6 method because with 5 possible arrays (more if there are more players), the results tend to be middling with at least one 16, rather than superhuman stats. I like to hand out lots of magic items and boons and other toys that improve the characters, but if they already have superhuman stats, it makes them way more powerful.

When we choose to use the 4d6, drop the lowest method, I've seen results that makes the group really powerful as a whole if everyone takes the best array.

Below are arrays that I just rolled to use as an example:

3d6
16, 15, 11, 7, 7, 6
16, 12, 11, 11, 10, 9
13, 11, 10, 8, 8, 7
13, 11, 9, 9, 5, 5
17, 12, 11, 10, 9, 7

4d6, drop lowest
18, 15, 13, 13, 9, 8
15, 14, 14, 12, 12, 10
16, 12, 12, 10, 9, 8
17, 14, 14, 10, 9, 7
15, 14, 13, 12, 8, 8

In each batch of arrays, I can see reasons why different players would choose different arrays, and in the 3d6 arrays, I can see why another might use point-buy. There are lots of choices, and that lessens the feelbad one might see in stat generation.

 

[Oofta]

In 1e? magic armor negated weight, and an 8 STR didn't confer any penalty to weight allowance. so a cleric with an 8 STR is still perfectly viable, especially if they had their highest stat in WIS (which they should!) because they got bonus spells. And that makes much more of a difference at lower levels than a stat variance does.

It may not matter as much in 1e. We weren't playing 1e though.

 

[ECMO3]

This, basically (other than BS being overpowered). Absorb Elements didn't save my friend's BS from a Behir lightning attack taking him down. Any backfielder in my group's games that isn't getting attacked...well, that just doesn't exist. No enemy is letting half the party plink away at them with impunity.

Along with upcast false life it did save my bladesinger (a different one) from Behir Lightning in Out of The Abyss. Barely, but it saved her.

I did not say backfielders do not get attacked, but they don't get attacked as often as people on the front line and when they do they take less damage. Straight up a backline Wizard with a 10 constitution has exactly half of the hit points of a fighter with a 14 Constitution, but I would suggest a melee fighter gets targeted about twice as much (more than that if the party is tactically sound). So all else equal a Wizard with a 10 con SHOULD last the same amount of time - has half the hit points, but gets targeted half as much

However that is not the whole story, because he has false life, he actually has more than half as many hit points, and when the wizard does get targeted he has a higher AC (including shield spell), or he can get resistance through absorb elements, or he can cancel crits with silvery barbs, and in some cases he is wearing greater invisibility or popping in and out of a fog cloud and can't even be targeted at all because the big-bad-enemy spell is one you need to SEE someone to target. So he has more than half as many total hit points, gets targeted half as much and takes less damage when he is targeted. That all adds up to goes down less often.

The only way to have enough spell slots to get the experience being discussed is to play the wizard as a fighter, while dealing much less damage than a fighter would, which means there is no reason for enemies to focus on you. In my games, for sure, you'd not be especially helpful to your party playing like that.

When I am playing a bladesinger that is how I play. I cast Fear occasionally because it is so darn good as a spell and I misty step every now and then (or I just play a Shadar Kai), but everything else as far as spells is melee stuff, usually defensive spells or haste.

I've heard this strawman thrown around before and it does not work out in play, the bladesinger is typically faster and more mobile than the enemies she is facing, it is not just disengaging, they need to go around her burning movement when they do and on her turn she is going to pass them and be on the other side of them again. Dashing around the battlefield chasing a wizard while someone wails on you is not a winning strategy .... and that is only if they can get around her at all.

Second you are not doing a lot less damage than a fighter, that was true with the SCAG bladesinger, but it is not true with Tasha's bladesinger. An 8th level Bladesinger who maxes dexterity is going to be doing 5d8+10 to anyone who ignores her and moves to go get someone else (1d8+5 attack, 2d8+5 cantrip, 2d8 movement damage). That is an average of 33 points of damage if it all hits and it is 9 more than they would take if they did not "ignore" her. That is pretty heavy melee damage at 8th level, and if you are insistent about going after another party member she can get some of that with advantage too. For comparison a fighter with dueling is doing 2d8+14 plus whatever his subclass brings to the table, a fighter with a Maul is doing 4d6+10.

Finally, your AC is so high you can use mobility to seriously disrupt the enemey. This is one big difference with a fighter, with a fighter you generally close and hope that one enemy stays there, if you have sentinel you have a feat to help you force it sometimes for one enemy, but you are screwed if it is more than one or if you miss with your sentinel AOO. With a bladesinger you attack and then move to wherever you need to be to block the enemies and get in their way. You ignore AOOs, if the bad guy takes them, then someone else can kite in and out. A hasted bladesinger typically has a move of 80 or 90! Heck if the bad guy gets close, grapple your ally, take the dash haste action move him to where you want him, then go back in and still make a cantrip attack on the bad guy.

This is aside from the fact she can do at will fire damage, at will necrotic damage and at will thunder damage, meaning she can usually find a soft spot against enemies with resistance, which the fighter can't do without magic weapons and generally can't do at all in tier 2 if he put together a GWM-PAM build or something like that to spike his DPR and actually do significantly more damage than the bladesinger .... so yeah the Trolls are going to ignore the only person that can do at will fire damage to them!

 

[Lanefan]

It was one of my chief complaints with 1e RAW (although easily remedied): The random magic items. It was quite easy for the dice to land where one PC was just the best fit for any particular magic item and others got left out.

Only if your party assigned ownership of items without compensating the rest of the characters in coin or other valuables.

If there's a 30,000 g.p. item in a 5-member party, when it comes time to divide treasure AFAIC each party member has a 6,000 g.p. share in that thing, meaning that in my view if it's just given to one character everyone else is out 6K.

And yes, this means sometimes either the party have to go sharesies on some big item(s) or the big item(s) have to be sold off.

Speaking of magic items...

I agree, largely because of magic items. If you look at Merdock, he had gauntlets of ogre power. That (and belts of giant strength) made your str score moot, and they were available pretty early on. Granted, it's been probably 30 years since I played him, but I want to say he had that by level 3 or 4. There are similar items for other stats as well, and folks need to remember that unlike 3e on, there weren't universal stat bonuses for each stat. A wizard with an INT 16 wasn't all that more effective than one with an INT 14 during actual combat.

Other than occasional loans from fellow party members, and despite playing various types of warriors for a ve-erry long time, I've never had a character own or use either Gauntlets of Ogre Power or a Girdle of Giant Strength.

I don't remember the bolded. There's a Deck of Many Things card that permanently jacks your Charisma up to 18, but things like the Headband of Intellect etc. are 3e inventions (or late enough 2e that I'd stopped paying attention).

 

[DND_Reborn]

I agree, largely because of magic items. If you look at Merdock, he had gauntlets of ogre power. That (and belts of giant strength) made your str score moot, and they were available pretty early on. Granted, it's been probably 30 years since I played him, but I want to say he had that by level 3 or 4. There are similar items for other stats as well, and folks need to remember that unlike 3e on, there weren't universal stat bonuses for each stat.

If you had GOP by level 3 or 4, you had a very generous DM or a Monty Haul style game IME.

Ioun Stones, Manuals/Tomes, and a handful of other items (Egg of Reason, Gem of Insight, Pearl of Wisdom, etc.) could increase ability scores beside STR, but with GOP and GOGS, STR got the easiest boost.

Now, in 5E, GOP are uncommon which is ridiculous IMO, but since they give you STR 19, which any PC can have without them, shrug.

5E also has crazy items for potentially insane ability boosts (hold over from other d20 editions I imagine...), but attunement at least helps prevent some abuse.

A wizard with an INT 16 wasn't all that more effective than one with an INT 14 during actual combat.

Sort of true. That lower in 1E did mean an additional 10% chance to fail to learn a spell as well as fewer minimum and maximum spells per level, not to forget that INT 14 could never learn 8th or 9th level spells (if you got that far...). Now, none of that directly impacts combat, sure, but having a diminished spell selection does have impact potential on combat.

 

[Oofta]

If you had GOP by level 3 or 4, you had a very generous DM or a Monty Haul style game IME.

Ioun Stones, Manuals/Tomes, and a handful of other items (Egg of Reason, Gem of Insight, Pearl of Wisdom, etc.) could increase ability scores beside STR, but with GOP and GOGS, STR got the easiest boost.

Now, in 5E, GOP are uncommon which is ridiculous IMO, but since they give you STR 19, which any PC can have without them, shrug.

5E also has crazy items for potentially insane ability boosts (hold over from other d20 editions I imagine...), but attunement at least helps prevent some abuse.


Sort of true. That lower in 1E did mean an additional 10% chance to fail to learn a spell as well as fewer minimum and maximum spells per level, not to forget that INT 14 could never learn 8th or 9th level spells (if you got that far...). Now, none of that directly impacts combat, sure, but having a diminished spell selection does have impact potential on combat.

I prefer 3's version of GOP and belts - they add to your existing strength up to a limit. Makes a lot more sense to me.