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

[dd.stevenson]

My all-time favorite forum game!

13, 8, 12, 16, 10, 8 -->Wizard, of course. Needs a rough and tumble background to explain his unwizardly physical stats.

10, 13, 7, 9, 7, 11 -->Thin, reedy monk. Liable to do stupid things and get the party into trouble.

 

[dd.stevenson]

Both of those are dreadful. Under the theory that I'd rather be actively bad instead of mediocre, I'd probably play 1a until he got ambushed and killed by a pitying flumph.

Are you including racial bonuses in these arrays? A raw 13 looks fine to me.

 

[Hussar]

The OP's pic wasn't sitting right with me, so I had to do a reformatting of it. You know, for science.

/snip
View attachment 64540
/snip

I think Dalamar pretty much nailed it back a few pages ago. Presuming that the math he's laid out holds, that would mean that when you die roll characters (4d6-1), you're going to get as good as the array or better twice as often as not.

If randomness was the goal, wouldn't those results straddle the array much more closely? If we only wanted randomness in order to get the creative juices going, and we were going to mitigate the really low stuff as pretty much unplayable, shouldn't the results still straddle the array?

This is why people talk about being punished for using the array. THey're just as capable of doing the math as anyone else. They know, pretty much, that an unplayable character won't get forced on them, and, at worst, they'll have a character just slightly behind the curve. At best, they'll have a character miles ahead of the curve.

I'd be a lot more willing to buy the argument that people just want randomness if the results weren't skewed so high. People don't just want randomness, they want to be able to play that character with very high stats without having to ask the DM, "Hey, can I play a 40 point buy character?" They know the DM will never allow that. So, for minimal risk, we die roll the characters, safe in the knowledge that there is a far better chance of "winning" than losing.

 

[Warbringer]

S D C I W C
9 16 11 5 8 13 -> Thief ... cute, likeable and dumb as a post
12 12 8 7 12 10

14 8 11 16 7 7 -> Eldritch Knight, Arrogant and over confident
12 13 17 6 8 12

14 10 6 9 8 6
13 10 10 18 18 10-> WTH... whatever multi cleric/MU (old skool)

 

[Ahrimon]

11 14 17 9 11 13 -> The punk rock bard that you just can't keep down. He's been in, and outlasting more tavern brawls than can be counted.
15 8 13 14 9 13 - Eldritch knight (? casting warrior option)

15 13 14 12 11 9 - > Fighter of any type would work well here. I'd go with battlemaster due to the Int.
15 7 8 9 12 7

13 9 15 9 9 10 -> A battle scared fighter that has survived as much on toughness as defeating his enemies. I'd go half orc if race could be selected afterward.
14 8 7 10 8 7

Definitely fun in a white room, but this method does have one drawback IMO. Party balance. It's entirely feasible to end up with a party that is sorely lacking vital roles. Of course, a savvy DM can be prepared and adjust the campaign accordingly, so it can still work, not to mention once you get into backgrounds and feats a lot of the holes can be shored up. If I had a regular group I would be tempted to give this a shot to see how well it goes.

 

[LostSoul]

IFor me you pick your race, this simulates your birth. Next you roll 3d6 DOWN THE LINE, you get 2 different arrays. You pick one of them and apply in order. These 2 pools represent different paths you have taken in your life, basically you pick what could have been.

I like that.

I go with 3d6 down the line, but the player can substitute one stat with a 16.

I just rolled some stats:

stats (3d6=12, 3d6=10, 3d6=15, 3d6=10, 3d6=13, 3d6=11)

S 12
D 10
C 15
I 10
W 13
Cha 11

stats (3d6=9, 3d6=7, 3d6=13, 3d6=10, 3d6=13, 3d6=13)

S 9
D 7
C 13
I 10
W 13
Cha 13

It seems no matter what I'm a wise dude, but in one path I ignore my physical fitness for social climbing. I don't think going to all those parties and missing out on sports and daily runs was a good idea, so I'll go for the first array.

That's pretty neat - that system implies some characterization elements.

(In my game, where I'd replace a single stat with 16, every class looks okay - except maybe Cleric with the second array.)

 

[Li Shenron]

I'm coming in late, but I'll chip in that I prefer point-buy over random rolls as well. I played with random rolls a lot, and most of the time, people ended up with similar stats to point buy arrays. Occasionally though, someone would have just a stupidly powerful array (18, 17, 16, 16, 15, 12, pre-race bonuses), while someone else ends up with +2 net across 6 stats. Yes, those cases are outliers, and yes, the other four players fell in the same ranges that point buy provided.

Since I really don't like the outliers (in either direction), I just use point buy. The above power-array was a hassle--challenging that character meant potentially killing the weak array player. Yes, that was 3E, where stats really, really mattered. In 1E/2E, stats had very little impact in your overall character, and in 5E, a 20 stat cap means that you can't get that far ahead of someone with lower rolls.

But again, most of the random arrays end up about the same as point buy arrays, and if I just use point buy arrays, I don't have those outliers anymore.

I don't remember the 5e default point-buy, but I think that when both point-buy and random are allowed in the same game, it is good design to make the average of random be higher than point-buy.

This is because with point-buy you have more control on the results, so the randomness reduces your chances for an optimal result.

However, in 5e there is an additional issue in the fact that point-buy won't get you up to 18 in a score. This is an extra benefit to choosing random, so maybe random doesn't need the same higher average vs point-buy.

But I actually like this additional limit, because it brings the max stat bonus in any score at 1st level closer to the proficiency bonus at the same level.

 

[Herobizkit]

This might not be the thread to ask, but what do you do when one player rolls clearly higher scores than the others?

IMC, the "power-gamer" rolled 18, 18, 17, 14, 12, 10 and made a Dex-based TW Fighter. The other two managed one natural 18 between them (he made a Sorc with a 20 Cha) and one got an 18 via race boost (and started a Cleric with 18 Str but switched to Paladin when he hit level 3).

Also, I opted to give a feat to everyone at level 1 because poo on humans. :3

 

[LostSoul]

This might not be the thread to ask, but what do you do when one player rolls clearly higher scores than the others?

It really depends on the type of game you're playing.

In a sandbox game, it doesn't really matter because the higher-powered PC is going to help all the other player's PCs achieve their goals.

In an episodic game the DM has to make sure to give equal screen time and presence to all PCs.

In an adventure path - I think it'd be a problem and you're better off using point-buy.

 

[billd91]

It really depends on the type of game you're playing.

In a sandbox game, it doesn't really matter because the higher-powered PC is going to help all the other player's PCs achieve their goals.

In an episodic game the DM has to make sure to give equal screen time and presence to all PCs.

In an adventure path - I think it'd be a problem and you're better off using point-buy.

Why would the rationale be any different for an adventure path than either a sandbox game or an episodic game? Won't the higher-powered PC help the other PCs achieve their goals in an AP as much as a sandbox? And wouldn't a GM want to make sure each PCs have roughly equal screen time in an AP as well as an episodic game? What's the difference?

And as to Herobizkit's question about what I would do if on PC has better rolls than the others - I generally do nothing. Being a couple points better on a check, attack, or doing a couple more points of damage per hit is all within the game's tolerances.