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

[Piratecat]

I roll in games but I'm pretty harsh and it came out of necessity of pathfinder. For 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.

Heh. I just rolled:

Array 1: S 11, D 9, C 8, I 9, W 8, CH 9
Array 2: S 5, D 15, C 10, I 11, W 11, CH 7 --> Unlikeable, weak thief it is!

This is fun. I'd totally do this for a short old-school game with high mortality, although not for a long-term campaign. Try 2:

Array 1: S 10, D 13, C 14, I 14, W 12, CH 12 --> This is really good! He could be nearly anything. Let's go wizard.
Array 2: S 11, D 14, C 12, I 10, W 10, CH 7

and finally...

Array 1: S 6, D 12, C 16, I 14, W 12, CH 13 --> a fine wizard, but...
Array 2: S 17, D 13, C 16, I 9, W 10, CH 9 --> a completely kick-ass fighter it is.

Man. I got lucky. The other day I rolled 4 1s on 4d6-1.

Interestingly, the only race I'd consider for this system is human or half-elf. I'd find it too annoying if I chose a race with more targeted racial bonuses and still ended up with mediocrity.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I have experienced this first hand as my rogue was frequently out-shown at stealth and lock picking by another player's bard. Couldn't fault the player, he picked it up as a secondary focus for the party's benefit. But his stats made him better at it than me and it came down to a meta-game issue of "Do we let the rogue do his shtick for narrative sake, knowing that our characters probably know full well the bard is better at it and more likely to lead us to success?"

Exactly. Been there. Done that.

It puts the players in an unanswerable dilemma: Isn't it actually Bad Roleplaying for the PCs to both pretend to not know what they (probably) know, and we the players to pretend our PCs do not know what we expect them to know? Or is it supposed to be Good Roleplaying to honor some implied dramatic convention about the Rogue being the clever and sneaky one, regardless of the actual physics and metaphysics working within the campaign world? Isn't it being a Bad Player to let someone be unnecessarily frustrated when this game is about teamwork and fun? Is it actually being a Good Player to pretend to not be frustrated when the world does not make sense?

That is why I am cool with quickie adventures (1-3 sessions) with any kind of stat gen, and not for the longer haul. In the short term, I can easily not notice and focus on having fun. In the long term, I am inclined to care about actually succeeding within the rules of the campaign world, and pretending to not notice the dire elephant in the room is an unnecessary distraction, at best.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

This is fun. I'd totally do this for a short old-school game with high mortality, although not for a long-term campaign.

And that is a big factor, right there. If the mortality rate is sufficiently high, then the downsides of rolled stats become less and the positives become greater. It is win-win. The greater the mortality, the more attractive rolling becomes to most everyone.

And in a long campaign, it can easily be lose-lose. Not always. But it does happen.

Let us recall that "D&D" was originally game made by and for wargamers, where holding the field of battle with 50% of your units still "alive" was an Overwhelming Victory. All "campaigns" were 1-2 sessions. "Alive" really meant "fit for more fighting" -- because who cares if your "knight unit" is actually dead or has a broken collar bone and will return the fight again next spring, when everything is temporary. D&D campaigns were born out of expectations of terrifying mortality rates, and, over time, mutated into stories that adhered to dramatic conventions. No, the individual campaign may not have changed, by the kinds of stories told in new groups shifted.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

And that is a big factor, right there. If the mortality rate is sufficiently high, then the downsides of rolled stats become less and the positives become greater.

That's exactly why I like rolling for Chaosium Call of Cthulhu games. My first character had an abysmal sanity score. His starting SAN was far below the "crazy" character who lost tons of sanity in a previous session. But it was all part of the fun because the expectation was that few of us were likely to survive many sessions.

 

[Dausuul]

I have a weird personal divide: I love rolling my character stats, but the game generally plays better when it's point-buy, so it's what I encourage as a GM.

I am of the opinion that players should have the choice to buy or roll. I ran a one-shot adventure for some college buddies a few weeks back. One of them rolled her stats; one of them used point buy; and one of them rolled his stats in order. It all worked out fine.

The combination of regular stat boosts with a hard cap at 20 means the hazards associated with stat-rolling are reduced in 5E. Everybody's going to wind up with a 20 in their prime stat eventually.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Heh. I just rolled:

Array 1: S 11, D 9, C 8, I 9, W 8, CH 9
Array 2: S 5, D 15, C 10, I 11, W 11, CH 7 --> Unlikeable, weak thief it is!

This is fun. I'd totally do this for a short old-school game with high mortality, although not for a long-term campaign. Try 2:

Array 1: S 10, D 13, C 14, I 14, W 12, CH 12 --> This is really good! He could be nearly anything. Let's go wizard.
Array 2: S 11, D 14, C 12, I 10, W 10, CH 7

and finally...

Array 1: S 6, D 12, C 16, I 14, W 12, CH 13 --> a fine wizard, but...
Array 2: S 17, D 13, C 16, I 9, W 10, CH 9 --> a completely kick-ass fighter it is.

Man. I got lucky. The other day I rolled 4 1s on 4d6-1.

Interestingly, the only race I'd consider for this system is human or half-elf. I'd find it too annoying if I chose a race with more targeted racial bonuses and still ended up with mediocrity.

everyone should try this

1) 11, 14, 12, 14, 12, 9 <<<< cleric... dwarven cleric
16, 11, 5, 7, 13, 12


2) 12, 15, 17, 16, 12, 17 <<<<<OMG, that is a warlock baby
9,13,9, 11, 14, 14

3) 3, 5, 12, 11, 11, 13
11,11,10,9,18,12 <<<<<I almost thought I was going to be unplayable until thos last 2 rolls... cleric

 

[JamesonCourage]

everyone should try this

(1) 13, 15, 9, 14, 5, 15 <----------- Obvious choice. I have some Dex, Int, and Cha, but basically no Wisdom. A thief that all the other players will hate it is!
(1) 8, 10, 10, 7, 12, 8


(2) 5, 3, 12, 11, 12, 6
(2) 11, 8, 11, 11, 6, 14 <----------- Bard, I guess. One who makes lots of bad choices with his terrible Wisdom... the other players will hate it!


(3) 12, 6, 10, 12, 16, 10 <----------- Looks like a Cleric, I suppose. Can't always get a low Wisdom, I guess
(3) 12, 10, 9, 12, 12, 7

 

[Mr Fixit]

Yay! Fun!

(1) 9, 16, 11, 10, 8, 9 -- a thoroughly unremarkable rogue with nice dexterity!

(2) 7, 9, 14, 7, 14, 6 -- Oh, lovely.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

7 9 10 11 8 9 10 -- net -4 mod
7 13 10 9 10 11 -- ready to fall asleep now

This is definitely not getting my RP juices flowing.

 

[Piratecat]

Array 1a: Str 4, Dex 9, Con 11, Int 6, Wis 10, Cha 7. The worst character known to adventuring, he serves as village idiot before herniating himself every time he tries to pick up a milk bucket. The best we can say is that he doesn't get sick more than the average peasant.
Array 1b: Str 7, Dex 8, Con 9, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 13. Weak, clumsy and sickly, this slightly charming peasant kid may attempt a life as a bard before being laughed out of the tavern.

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.

Array 2a: Str 12, Dex 13, Con 15, Int 10, Wis 13, Cha 8. Healthy as a horse, and good stats for a ranger. But...
Array 2b: Str 12, Dex 15, Con 8, Int 10, Wis 4, Cha 12. OH YEAH. 15 dex and 4 wis? If these aren't stats for a rogue with terrible judgment, I don't know what are. Sign me up.

Now I want to run an absurdly lethal 5e game using this method, loaded down with a ton of pre-gen character sheets.