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

[Jacob Marley]

BTW, when I'm talking about assumptions, I'm talking about GAME ASSUMPTIONS, not what happens at your table. The game assumes everyone is the same level and has done so since 3e.

I can't speak definitively about 5e as I do not own the DMG, yet. I can, however, speak definitively about 3e and 4e as I have those books and have run those two systems. To state that 3e assumes every party member is the same level is incorrect. The 3e rules includes numerous ways baked in the system to cause a level disparity: Raise Dead, energy drain, and item crafting (to name a few) will all cause level disparity.

4e, on the other hand, does assume level similarity. It specifically says so on page 121 of the DMG under the heading: Absent Players (paragraph 2).

 

[bedir than]

Interesting spin. I'd say that they had a group with one character with a one level difference. But, hey, whatever. It's not like we have two adventure path modules out now where characters are generally assumed to be within a level of each other. But, yeah, groups with four, five, or more level disparity are perfectly common and I'm sure that the majority of tables out there see that.

That's moving the goalposts.

 

[Sunseeker]

I'm not interested in playing a game where one character is significantly more powerful than the others.

Fair question: do you mean at the start or throughout the game? Because equality of opportunity is not the same as equality of outcome.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Oh, cool. So, Sacrosanct has never seen the problem, it cannot possibly exist. Fantastic, problem solved.

Yeah, this is more about arguing against me rather than the points I'm making, so, I'm out.

It's not just me. I'm betting it's not a problem for 99% of the people out there. Do you know why? Because every single game I have ever heard of, point buy, array, or random rolling, has had PCs with different +'s in it. I'm in a game right now that is only array, and you know what? One fighter has a +3 to hit and damage and another has a +2. The rogue has a +4. And guess what? No modifications to game balance or encounter design has to be done to account for those. And if one PC gets a magic item and others don't? Also don't need to suddenly revamp all the encounters.

The only way your argument even remotely has any merit is if one PC has a +5 or so difference over another, and the odds of that happening are so astronomically remote that it's not even worth worrying about. That's why I said I don't think you have a compelling argument because the facts just don't support them. And to be honest, yeah, I do think your tone in this thread along with your repeated strawmen arguments comes off very much like sour grapes to me.


So maybe you're the 1% who honestly feels like every PC has to have every bonus the same or "it's not fair". More power to you. But don't act like things like random stat gen are a problem. Because they're not, and the game doesn't assume that the PCs will. In fact, the game assumes that there will be variation in PC stats, otherwise they wouldn't even allow you to choose your array. The book would just say, "If you're this class, here are your stats." I'm pretty sure the book doesn't say that.

 

[Hussar]

Sacrosanct - I'M NOT MAKING THE FAIRNESS ARGUMENT. Is that clear enough for you? Why are you ascribing this argument to me?

 

[Sacrosanct]

Uh, this isn't that difficult to figure out: equality of opportunity and fairness at the table. Pretty simple really. No sour grapes at all.

Everyone at the table is given the same choices and opportunity. Ergo: fairness. To get upset because one PC has an extra +1 bonus? That's pretty sour grapes. Or jealousy. Why? Because it doesn't impact or take away from your PC at all.

I'm not interested in playing a game where one character is significantly more powerful than the others.
.

Great news! That doesn't happen by and large now. Not with random gen or any other method you choose. Why? Random gen will only give a PC a +1 or maybe a +2 bonus over a non random gen (along with probably other stats that are worse than the non-random gen PC). And since even with array right now, some PCs have a +1 or +2 bonus over other PCs depending on how they set up their stats. So great news! No matter what variation you use, you won't be playing a game where one character is significantly more powerful than the others unless they cheated or exploited loopholes. And that's a player issue, not a rules issue. The odds of a player rolling several 18s and 17s is so rare that it just doesn't happen with any significant occurrence to even be considered in the discussion. You might as well say you don't want play a PC in metal armor because they have a higher chance of getting struck by lightning over a clothed PC.

Speaking of not wanting to play in games, I know I wouldn't want to play in a game where the DM makes sure every PC has the same stats, advances exactly the same, and is given items at exactly the same rate. After all, if you have everyone equal and you find one +1 weapon, who gets it? Oh noes! Now you've got one PC more powerful than the others! Whatever shall we do!

That's sarcasm by the way.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Sacrosanct - I'M NOT MAKING THE FAIRNESS ARGUMENT. Is that clear enough for you? Why are you ascribing this argument to me?

OK, I fixed it to direct at your arguments. Better? Doesn't change the point at all, but whatever...

So maybe you're the 1% who honestly feels like every PC has to have every bonus the same or "adjustments need to be made to encounter balance". More power to you. But don't act like things like random stat gen are a problem. Because they're not, and the game doesn't assume that the PCs will. In fact, the game assumes that there will be variation in PC stats, otherwise they wouldn't even allow you to choose your array. The book would just say, "If you're this class, here are your stats." I'm pretty sure the book doesn't say that.

 

[aramis erak]

The party being the same level is an assumption in 3e, 4e and 5e.

Not so much in 5E. If anything, the assumption is that they're in the same tier, not the same level.

In looking at how encounter balancing is set up...
... in 3E it's strongly biased towards same level, and breaks if the party spans more than a 3 level range (such as 4-6th level - yeah, the average party level can be applied in those cases, exceed them, and it breaks badly).
... in 4E, it's pretty explicit that the default assumption is everyone is the same level.

... in 5E, that core assumption is not strongly evidenced. The encounter balance system isn't based upon the average lever, but upon summing the budget points from each member's xp budget.

EG, A 3rd level 5 person party (3/3/3/3/3) has a hard difficulty budget of 1175; a party of 5/4/3/2/1 instead has a budget of 1575, a party of 5/3/3/2/2 has a 1500 budget, and a 4/4/3/3/1 budgets at 1675, 4/4/3/2/2 is 1275, and 4/3/3/3/2 is 1200.

RAW, that's not an "all the party is the same level" assumption at work. If anything, that they explicitly make it work that way shows a clear awareness that the presumption of all being the same level is false for many groups and must be accomodated.

The whole concept of bounded accuracy is in part an accommodation for mixed level parties.

5E suggests keeping it close, but doesn't as a design require it, and actually provides methods for both keeping everyone the same, or, should you choose, coping with the difference with the standard tools.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Why? Random gen will only give a PC a +1 or maybe a +2 bonus over a non random gen (along with probably other stats that are worse than the non-random gen PC). And since even with array right now, some PCs have a +1 or +2 bonus over other PCs depending on how they set up their stats. So great news! No matter what variation you use, you won't be playing a game where one character is significantly more powerful than the others unless they cheated or exploited loopholes. And that's a player issue, not a rules issue. The odds of a player rolling several 18s and 17s is so rare that it just doesn't happen with any significant occurrence to even be considered in the discussion. You might as well say you don't want play a PC in metal armor because they have a higher chance of getting struck by lightning over a clothed PC.

Tangent: one interesting thing about 5E is that multiple 18s don't really help you all that much unless you have a MAD character concept. A monk with two 18s from the get go is more more feasible than a monk with two 16s, but... it's still just a monk, not definitely better than a fighter with a single 18 in Dex. A wizard with three 18s could put one in Int, one in Dex, and one in Con, and wind up being a very survivable wizard, but in standard play he isn't really more powerful than a regular old Int 18 wizard. He's just more likely to survive near-TPKs than he would otherwise be. But then, there are other ways to get equivalent effects, such as having a cleric habitually Death Ward all party members or a bard take Inspiring Leader or a wizard cast Clone.

In short, whenever I roll up multiple high stats for a character I'm always a little surprised at how low the marginal utility on the second 16/17/18 is, relative to the first. Prime stats have a ton of impact, secondary stats much less so.

 

[pemerton]

I still haven't read a single argument why another player having a better stat is bad that doesn't come down to sour grapes or jealousy.

I presented an argument upthread pre-necro. [MENTION=9053]SteveC[/MENTION] presented basically the same argument not very far upthread and post-necro.

Some people do not want to play a game in which some players have characters whose mechanical capacity to impact play is significantly different from that of others.

I don't think that's a very complicated preference. Even those who don't share it should be able to understand it.

It depends on the DM and campaign style, but in my view there is always a niche for every character, even if that niche is just "the guy who is willing to pull three cards from a Deck of Many Things because he has nothing to lose" and "the guy who is willing to climb into the mysterious machine and press the button" and "the guy who is willing to wade through the waist-deep underground lake with unknown things in it."

Do things that earn inspiration so you can help out a bit more than your array says. Be willing to avoid conflict.

It absolutely depends on campaign style, and goals for play more generally.

I would never use a PC generation mechanic which produced PCs whose players had to be willing to avoid conflict, or whose stand-out feature was the player's willingness to risk them because of poor stats. (The inspiration point strikes me as orthogonal, because it is not easier to earn inspiration if your PC has low stats.)

The whole rationale for a player having a PC, in my view, is to be able to engage in conflict as the core of play, and to have a meaningful chance of impacting the shared fiction as a result of that.