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

[Jeff Albertson]

You seem to assume that wanting to impact the fiction via the mechanics is a flaw in a player. I regard it as a virtue.

That is so cloyingly disingenuous, a player not caring that the guy next to him has an extra +1 in his scores, still wants to impact the fiction via the mechanics, and can, a character with all 10s, will still impact the fiction of the game via the mechanics.

 

[pemerton]

I agree that for someone who shares your assumptions in bold probably won't have a problem with verisimilitude under point buy. I don't share those assumptions

I didn't think you did!

Like I've said upthread, I've got no issue with others' assumptions and play preferences. I just think it's helpful to be clear on them.

So, for instance, if someone says that point buy hurts verisimilitude, I think it's helpful to work out under what assumptions this is or isn't true. Otherwise, for instance, the idea might get about that point buyers don't care for verisimilitude (this is something I've seen quite often in response to those who prefer less traditional approaches across the board - though it hasn't been widely argued in this thread, only by one or two posters I think). Whereas, at least in my experience (and in my own case) this is not so at all.

On this whole topic I think we (ie you, emdw45, and I) are largely ad idem as far as the analysis goes, though we have different play preferences.

This is the reason the majority of our group enjoys rolling as well and generally rolling with a system that allows for high stats. Point buy creates limits on characters that exist neither in stories nor real life.

This sounds equally like a reason to open up the points buy options eg just lift the number of points, or allow more aggressive down-trading with dump stats, or set some new arrays with higher overall numbers, etc.

I don't regard the existing arrays as especially sacrosanct (though in 4e you probably wouldn't want starting stats above 20 - that would tend to break the maths of the game).

The worst system IME is roll-then-arrange, this essentially is 'variable point buy'.

Interesting take; the analysis looks right (though it's rather "lumpy" point buy) but whether that makes it worse is a matter of preference, I think (as per my exchange with [MENTION=6787650]emdw45[/MENTION]).

Do you think Moldvay Basic, with its swap-2-for-1 option, also counts as variable point buy? Or is it so lumpy that it's not really point buy any more, but more like smoothing of the rough edges of an essentially rolled-in-order character?

 

[pemerton]

Arguably the more linear the campaign, and the more encounter-centric, the more vital is mechanical balance, because in a typical linear AP that is the only way the players contribute. If everyone has to do the same thing, especially the same pre-written thing, then everyone needs to be able to contribute roughly equally.

I'm finding that rolled stats work well in my Classic D&D game, which is pretty sandboxy. and I think Point Buy would hurt the tone. With 4e D&D I'd only ever consider point buy or array. My Pathfinder AP game uses 4d6-in-order-swap-one and that seems to work at least inasmuch as class imbalance vastly overshadows stat imbalance. Conversely I'm using default array in my 5e sandbox game, and that has worked great, especially as it gave me space to have different human races get different attribute modifiers.

My 3E experience is limited (when we did play it, we used random rolls as per the book) and PF I haven't played at all. While I believe that class balance overshadows stat imbalance, I'm not sure that's a good rationale for rolling!

That said, in Rolemaster games (which have been very close to full-points-buy PC building), we have used high rolled stats as an opportunity to open up boutique build options that otherwise wouldn't be viable (due to MAD), and have used low rolled stats as an excuse to play builds or races that otherwise would be too overpowered. Which I guess is somewhat similar.

For me, the mechanical imbalance of power issue isn't connected to linearity or APing (which as you know I am not a big fan of) but is connected to "encounter centric" for a certain reading of encounter: I prioritise mechanical action resolution as a way of working out what happens when the proverbial hits the fan (be that combat, social, exploration), and thereby setting the fictional parameters of what happens next, and having one player systematically disadvantaged relative to another in that respect seems to detract rather than add.

If I was playing a character-tree or disposable-PC game, rolling stats might fit right in! But my game is the opposite: for instance, I have two players in my group with whom I've been playing, on average 20+ times per year, for seventeen-and-a-half years, who in that time have played 4 PCs. Another player, who is only a year or two behind them, has played 3 PCs. In those circumstances, I think that a degree of equality of mechanical capability is fairly important!

 

[S'mon]

I didn't think you did!

Like I've said upthread, I've got no issue with others' assumptions and play preferences. I just think it's helpful to be clear on them.

So, for instance, if someone says that point buy hurts verisimilitude, I think it's helpful to work out under what assumptions this is or isn't true. Otherwise, for instance, the idea might get about that point buyers don't care for verisimilitude (this is something I've seen quite often in response to those who prefer less traditional approaches across the board - though it hasn't been widely argued in this thread, only by one or two posters I think). Whereas, at least in my experience (and in my own case) this is not so at all.

On this whole topic I think we (ie you, emdw45, and I) are largely ad idem as far as the analysis goes, though we have different play preferences.

This sounds equally like a reason to open up the points buy options eg just lift the number of points, or allow more aggressive down-trading with dump stats, or set some new arrays with higher overall numbers, etc.

I don't regard the existing arrays as especially sacrosanct (though in 4e you probably wouldn't want starting stats above 20 - that would tend to break the maths of the game).

Interesting take; the analysis looks right (though it's rather "lumpy" point buy) but whether that makes it worse is a matter of preference, I think (as per my exchange with [MENTION=6787650]emdw45[/MENTION]).

Do you think Moldvay Basic, with its swap-2-for-1 option, also counts as variable point buy? Or is it so lumpy that it's not really point buy any more, but more like smoothing of the rough edges of an essentially rolled-in-order character?

I don't much like the 2 for 1 buy down but per RAW it is extremely limited - only Str int wis can be lowered, they and dex can be raised only if they are a class prime. The effect does not much resemble arrange as desired, it rarely means more than 1 or 2 on prime since 2 must go off reduced stat and it can't go below 9. But my own game is 3 of 4d6 default in order - you can put your roll in a different stat but once rolled it's 'locked in'. I developed thus system GMing for my son and it combines advantages of in order and assign - you get decent prime stats but rarely 18s, and other stats can be all over the place. Cha by default is rolled last and most of the pcs have good Cha which fits the Mentzer/Elmore feel I want.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION], I don't quite follow your procedure - what gets allocated when. Can you explain a bit more?

 

[spinozajack]

This is one of the best reason I've seen on this thread for using systems other than the basic point buy described in the PHB.

"I especially like the challenge of making a viable, even potent character, with some oddball stat combos. A character that had multiple 16s would end up quite different than one with a single 17 and a bunch of 12s and 13s and a couple 7-9s. It adds variety because there is a completely different subset of optimized race / class / feat / multiclass choices for each set of stats.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...hment-Or-overlooked-data/page56#ixzz3baXUOwjJ"

Thanks.

I always roll stats before choosing anything else about my character. If I don't have the right stats for Character A, I'll just shelve it and make Character B-Z (I have plenty juggling around in my mind) for now until my next character is rolled. Some of my PC ideas really do need to have specific stats and I'm sometimes surprised as the quirks I've added or customization choices I took when I had to. Necessity is the mother of invention.

I do it this way because I'm pragmatic. I don't assume that my character with perfectly chosen stats will last, so why bother? Just roll with the punches. I'm fine if this character dies, I'll just make another one. No big deal. I have fun playing this game no matter what. Well, so long as I'm playing with mature people who also don't sweat the small stuff and know how to take a punch on the chin. I shudder to think of how certain people who can't handle their characters dying gracefully would react to something truly awful happening to them in real life. Not something I want to be around. Characters living or dying, this stat bonus total or that one, don't matter. The real fun in this game isn't to be found in the stats anyway. Sure, making characters with decent stats is fun, but so is making them with only 1 good stat, or sometimes even none. That's the point I'm trying to make, even in point buy, you can pick 13s for everything and as a human end up with 14s.

How many people actually do that? My guess is, probably none.

Rolling stats adds some character build variety to the game. With point buy, there is an optimal selection (for the primary stats at least) for a given race / class / feat combo, and that's that. You min max your main stat, then pick secondaries, then sprinkle ternaries, done. Rolling stats makes character creation fun, you never know what you're gonna get, and I love having inferior stats and yet still doing better in-game when I play the game more tactically. If you play the game as a combat-oriented smash fest, you can play on auto pilot because there's often a straightforward way to solve a combat scenario : kill em all until they're dead.

What if my character is the only fighter but we don't have any ranged artillery types? Well, I'll make him an archer and take a feat for combat mobility or perhaps defense duelist or something.

Everybody knows how Conan is going to win, but following Frodo was certainly an adventure too. Frodo didn't fight much, or kill much of anything. Or cast any spells.

I don't want every player to think they are Conan or Gandalf every single time, that is so boring. Sometimes I want there to be one exceptional PC whose more mediocre seeming allies are actually the true heroes in the end. If everyone's the top, nobody is. If everyone's special, nobody is. What makes you special should be more your actions and your deeds, not the size of your biceps or how much damage you do with your Eldritch strike.

Min maxing is actually more fun when you don't know you stats. So for either type of gamer, the roleplayer or the minmaxer, rolling is better.

 

[Manbearcat]

For some serious commentary, as a GM, I have a strong affinity towards array or symmetry in PC build math. Even when I'm running Dogs in the Vineyard (which has multiple dice packages available at character creation) or games with various schemes for PC build points/suites, I would prefer the PCs to all have symmetry at the outset of play. But those systems' PC build:resolution mechanics math are typically more stable, bounded, and predictable than D&D so it becomes less of a problem during play. Further, the stakes of violent conflict aren't so high (with outcomes so final/punitive) and the means that players have are typically more robust (thus leading to PCs being more inclined towards building toward broadness).

It is pretty simple for me. My mental overhead is finite (as is everyone else's) when I'm running games. I want to spend pretty much all (not some, not most...pretty much all) of it on:

1) squaring away genesis and evolving PC build flags and player cues (which hopefully most of them are overt/transparently telegraphed) such that we're all locked in in on the broad types of thematic conflict I should be filling their lives with...

2) consistently putting focused, challenging, dramatic adversity before the players and their goals...

3) consistently evolving the continuity/fictional output of each conflict with regards to 1 and 2 above, genre expectations, and deference to what was overtly staked at the outset of the conflict.

Any cognitive workload that is at tension with that, or outright adverse to it, is right out. Having to juggle the prospects on conflict resolution of unwanted intraparty imbalance and extraparty imbalance (with respect to the challenges I'm going to put before them) with the things I actually care about when GMing needlessly atrophies my focus, flat out wears on my nerves, and consequently dries up my creative well.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

On this whole topic I think we (ie you, emdw45, and I) are largely ad idem as far as the analysis goes, though we have different play preferences.

Yep. It's been a pleasure discussing it with you.



Sent from my LS670 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Parmandur]

That is, if the "next guy" is an untrained Cha-10 guy (+0 modifier). Or if the Rogue is level 20 (+8 modifier).



But yeah, even a Strength 8 monk untrained in Athletics makes a decent grappler in a pinch if you slap Enhance Ability (Strength) on her, simply due to the high variance on a d20 and the multiple attempts she gets from extra attacks. Stat penalties simply aren't prohibitive under bounded accuracy.

Heh, the former, I meant at level one. Of course, it only gets better.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The real fun in this game isn't to be found in the stats anyway. Sure, making characters with decent stats is fun, but so is making them with only 1 good stat, or sometimes even none. That's the point I'm trying to make, even in point buy, you can pick 13s for everything and as a human end up with 14s.

How many people actually do that? My guess is, probably none.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

In other words, I have a player who did that. He picked a dragonborn instead of a human and so wound up with 12s and 13s across the board instead of 13s and 14s, but it's still pretty much someone deliberating winding up with "no good stats."