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

[Hussar]

And I agree with this. The average across the board in most (close to all?) rolled groups would be higher than 25-point buy. Why's that? Because 25-point buy is, by most standards, very low.

My benchmark is always the average of the six stats. 25-point buy can give an average just over 12 but only if all the stats are 12 or 13. Try giving yourself a 17 and a 15, say, and your average gets kicked in the teeth. (by comparison, standard array - which is even worse - gives a locked-in average of 12.00, if memory serves)
/snip

Not by the standards of the game though. Not since 3e anyway. 25 point buy is what the game is based on.

It's funny. People talk all the time about how 5e is D&D on training wheels and how combat is never dangerous enough. There really is a simple fix. 20 point buy characters. Or 18 if you like. Now you have D&D on hard mode.

But no one ever seems to do that.

 

[Hussar]

That the point-buy and standard array values are set lower than the rolled average might be an intentional trade-off, however, for the certainty of knowing what you'll end up with for stats.

But, that's my point. There is no trade off if die rolled nearly always results in higher stats. How is that a trade off?

 

[Oofta]

If I want slightly more powerful PCs while still using point buy, I'd just use 3.5's point buy and use the elite array with 27 points. Want better than 4d6 drop lowest, up the point buy to 32.

The thing with rolling is not that everyone will be better than what you get with point buy. Instead it's that some people will be significantly better and some will be significantly worse. In many groups (not all of course) people that end up significantly worse either re-roll, have their stats adjusted or just happen to die quickly. Based on my understanding of lanefan's games all PCs die quickly anyway, but that's a different story.

For me, I'd rather play someone just as competent as the rest of the party. If my PC is more successful (whatever that means, it's a team game) it's because I have a better build and tactics, not because I happened to roll well 1 time. If Bob plays an archer that always has an 8 strength I don't care. Bob will always put their lowest ability score in strength for their archer no matter how they got the value.

All I can say is that I will never play in a game that I'm going to be running a PC for more than a few sessions. Give me point buy or give me ... well give me the option to use point buy even if everyone else is rolling or I'll just find a different game. It's a game. I don't want to play someone significantly worse or better than the rest of the party just because of a 1 time roll.

Spoiler: Some related analysis I found interesting if not particularly relevant

I was curious as to what the actual distribution was, what are the odds of rolling a 6 or less versus rolling an 18 so I did a quick google search. I can't find it. I can find what the average high score is in anydice. I can find roll 4d6 drop lowest while also rolling 7 time and dropping the lowest result. Most results? Can be paraphrased as How to fix 4d6 drop lowest by ensuring you don't have really bad results.

I did eventually find a post that gave the actual % chance of rolling any single number and after a bit of futzing did a chart. The result? You are more likely to get a 6 or lower than you are to get an 18. The average individual result will be 12 or less. Well, at least until someone tells me that I did my analysis all wrong. After all there are lies, damn lies and statistics. In other words, you can present statistics in different ways to support many different conclusions.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Basically proves my point then doesn't it?

Yep. I've done a lot of this before so I figured I would chime in on the numbers.

The reason to die roll is to get higher than point buy or standard array. So, @Sacrosanct I believe that this is the proof you requested? The odds of averaging lower than either point buy or standard array are fairly small - as in about 1 in 3 (ish). The odds of the group being below are pretty close to zero.

Which has been my point all the way along. The primary effect of die roll (even if it isn't the stated reason) is to get a party that has higher than baseline stats. And, while @DND_Reborn's numbers seem to indicate that about a third of die rolled characters should be below the 72 points, I'd bet dollars to donuts that in play that's not true.

I agree, the problem with rolling is this: if you roll, you will likely have better scores, BUT you could have worse. Do you want to take that risk?

If people agreed and ACTUALLY took the rolls in one set (no multiple sets, no taking the standard array or point-buy if you rolled badly, etc.) then it would be fine, but I agree most groups who allow rolling add a caveat of some sort: roll 3 sets, use standard array or point-buy if you don't like rolls, use group rolling (every method I've seen increases scores above normal), etc.

I'm sure there are groups out there who roll and you are stuck with what you roll, no matter what, but I haven't seen a group ever do that. I know in the 40+ years I've been playing, even when we used 4d6k3, if your rolls were really bad, you got to roll again. If you were happy, you kept them.

 

[DND_Reborn]

It's funny. People talk all the time about how 5e is D&D on training wheels and how combat is never dangerous enough. There really is a simple fix. 20 point buy characters. Or 18 if you like. Now you have D&D on hard mode.

But no one ever seems to do that.

Actually, I am glad you mentioned that! It never occurred to me LOL, but yeah that would help a bit.

Even just 22 points or a 14,13,12,11,10,9 array (avg 11.5) would help a bit, but that makes rolling even more attractive... Hmm...

 

[Hussar]

Actually, I am glad you mentioned that! It never occurred to me LOL, but yeah that would help a bit.

Even just 22 points or a 14,13,12,11,10,9 array (avg 11.5) would help a bit, but that makes rolling even more attractive... Hmm...

Insist on 3d6 and see how many takers there are.

I actually did have a 3e DM who insisted on 15 point characters. Made for a very different game.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Insist on 3d6 and see how many takers there are.

In 1E where you needed much higher or lower scores for modifiers, it would be fine probably. But in 5E I don't think there would be many...

I actually did have a 3e DM who insisted on 15 point characters. Made for a very different game.

15 points would probably be a bit too hard IMO, but I can imagine it would since that could give you all 11's. I mean, you could do a 12,12,12,10,10,10 if you didn't want penalties, which is what I would probably do.

In 1E I had a cleric whose scores were all between 9-12, with a WIS 12 so he actually had a 5% chance for spell failure whenever he cast. I made him very generic, even his name: his family were millers and his father's name was Ben, so he was Benson Miller.

 

[Oofta]

Yep. I've done a lot of this before so I figured I would chime in on the numbers.


I agree, the problem with rolling is this: if you roll, you will likely have better scores, BUT you could have worse. Do you want to take that risk?

If people agreed and ACTUALLY took the rolls in one set (no multiple sets, no taking the standard array or point-buy if you rolled badly, etc.) then it would be fine, but I agree most groups who allow rolling add a caveat of some sort: roll 3 sets, use standard array or point-buy if you don't like rolls, use group rolling (every method I've seen increases scores above normal), etc.

I'm sure there are groups out there who roll and you are stuck with what you roll, no matter what, but I haven't seen a group ever do that. I know in the 40+ years I've been playing, even when we used 4d6k3, if your rolls were really bad, you got to roll again. If you were happy, you kept them.

I mentioned above the story of the player that had spectacular rolls and the one that had crap rolls (and no, it wasn't me)? That was a strict "you get what you get" table. The gal who had the high rolls eventually felt so guilty about it she committed suicide by goblin. The thing is that the DM and other players were oblivious to the fact that she did this. They thought it was just bad luck that she ran into a pack of goblins needlessly while looking at the person that had the crap scores.

In any case, that was the last game I joined that did rolling for stats and that was back last century. So it does happen and in at least some cases people are not happy with the results even when they roll high. Whether other people recognize it or not.

 

[DND_Reborn]

So it does happen and in at least some cases people are not happy with the results even when they roll high. Whether other people recognize it or not.

Oh sure. Sorry if my post implied otherwise! I have had players with great scores ask to give one of their scores to another player who didn't roll as well even.

I don't like having great scores. I like decent to good scores myself, and get that with point-buy.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Basically proves my point then doesn't it?

The reason to die roll is to get higher than point buy or standard array. So, @Sacrosanct I believe that this is the proof you requested? The odds of averaging lower than either point buy or standard array are fairly small - as in about 1 in 3 (ish). The odds of the group being below are pretty close to zero.

Which has been my point all the way along. The primary effect of die roll (even if it isn't the stated reason) is to get a party that has higher than baseline stats. And, while @DND_Reborn's numbers seem to indicate that about a third of die rolled characters should be below the 72 points, I'd bet dollars to donuts that in play that's not true.

No, this doesn't prove what you claimed, and isn't what you claimed all along. You claimed

Die rolling is just a way to play higher powered characters while pretending that it's "fair" or something like that.

Nothing in DND_Reborn's post proves that. All it proves is that the difference is very minor, likely not even noticeable by anyone who didn't sit and run numbers. It certainly doesn't prove your claim that players who prefer rolling have less integrity or are trying to cheat.

And you also have not provided any evidence of

the average is ALWAYS higher than base point buy. It is never below.

In fact, DND_Reborn's post directly disproves this.