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

[Celtavian]

I don't feel anyone should use a system of stat generation where one person might use point buy and the other rolls. Everyone at the table should use the same stat generation method. Too many headaches caused by players using different stat generation methods.

I prefer rolling myself. Our group tends to create a very generous rolling system that usually leads to everyone having good stats. We do 4d6, seven times, drop the lowest, minimum one 16 or you can roll the stat set again. Everyone has at least one great stat (usually more than one) using this method.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Of course, I'll almost always have a concept in mind, but those random results can take that concept in unexpected directions. I like that.

For me, the "unexpected directions" are the things I hope to experience once play begins, rather than before I have a chance to make any in-character choices. Of course, different strokes for different folks and such. I also haven't had nearly as many opportunities to play as many people, and tend to like trying the same archetype several times to see what different ways it works out, so that's probably another point of divergence.

When I'm DM, though, I don't tend to force dice rolling. What I'll normally say is you can choose to roll, or you can point buy; but once the dice have started rolling, you can't change your mind back to point buy. Means that those who wanted the risk know what they let themselves in for if they do roll awfully (I don't think I've ever seen an utterly unplayable character in my 10+ years of DMing though). It's a risk/reward thing.

Have you allowed anyone to reroll if they were unhappy with their stats? Because that's a pretty big component of the "problem" PB-favorers have with rolling. That is, there's never less chance of "reward," but almost all rolling methods, and many tables, offer things which partially or even significantly reduce the "risk" involved. One table I played at, the DM flat out said, "I don't think it's interesting to have PCs that suck. Reroll any stat that's less than 10, if you like, until it's at least 10." I was quite happy accepting rolling there (and, surprise surprise, most people got pretty good stats as a result! ) This is, of course, not what I'd expect at most tables that roll, but it's hyperbole for effect: even you seem to make exception for the really terrible rolls (e.g. 8/5/3/9/8/6 or whatever you would consider "unplayable") despite them being just as likely as really amazing rolls (e.g. 12/17/18/11/12/14, which is the exact 'inversion' of the aforementioned terrible array)--and cutting the bad ones out ups the chances of getting the mediocre and good ones.

I remember one character, playing a cleric, who rolled pretty great stats. Well, except his Con (the stats for this game were rolled in order, not arranged), which was 3. But all his other stats were amazing. He ended up being this frail, sickly man who we supported and often just carried around because in all other respects, he kicked arse. Just had to make sure he never, ever, took a hit. Added an interesting, different, element to the party. We enjoyed it. And it would never have happened with point buy.

That's pretty neat, though I'm not sure I'd have enjoyed that as much as your group did. I'd feel like a burden, no matter how "kick arse" I was when not being carried around.

And, as my wall-o-text above implies, for every "amazing stats except for one," there's an "utterly awful stats except for one" as well, and that'd be a lot harder to enjoy, I'd imagine. (Or, at least, it would be harder for *me* to enjoy.)

 

[DaveDash]

For me, the "unexpected directions" are the things I hope to experience once play begins, rather than before I have a chance to make any in-character choices. Of course, different strokes for different folks and such. I also haven't had nearly as many opportunities to play as many people, and tend to like trying the same archetype several times to see what different ways it works out, so that's probably another point of divergence.



Have you allowed anyone to reroll if they were unhappy with their stats? Because that's a pretty big component of the "problem" PB-favorers have with rolling. That is, there's never less chance of "reward," but almost all rolling methods, and many tables, offer things which partially or even significantly reduce the "risk" involved. One table I played at, the DM flat out said, "I don't think it's interesting to have PCs that suck. Reroll any stat that's less than 10, if you like, until it's at least 10." I was quite happy accepting rolling there (and, surprise surprise, most people got pretty good stats as a result! ) This is, of course, not what I'd expect at most tables that roll, but it's hyperbole for effect: even you seem to make exception for the really terrible rolls (e.g. 8/5/3/9/8/6 or whatever you would consider "unplayable") despite them being just as likely as really amazing rolls (e.g. 12/17/18/11/12/14, which is the exact 'inversion' of the aforementioned terrible array)--and cutting the bad ones out ups the chances of getting the mediocre and good ones.



That's pretty neat, though I'm not sure I'd have enjoyed that as much as your group did. I'd feel like a burden, no matter how "kick arse" I was when not being carried around.

And, as my wall-o-text above implies, for every "amazing stats except for one," there's an "utterly awful stats except for one" as well, and that'd be a lot harder to enjoy, I'd imagine. (Or, at least, it would be harder for *me* to enjoy.)

Heh, I've been teaching my 2 yearold to count by rolling stats on d6s, mostly because the dots on a d6 dice forces her to learn counting instead of just memorizing numbers.

We've rolled a ton of characters that would be god awful to play. I think I rolled 7-9's once.

 

[pemerton]

Our group tends to create a very generous rolling system that usually leads to everyone having good stats. We do 4d6, seven times, drop the lowest, minimum one 16 or you can roll the stat set again. Everyone has at least one great stat (usually more than one) using this method.

This relates to something that someone (maybe [MENTION=6787650]emdw45[/MENTION]?) posted upthread: if every PC is guaranteed to have a decent primary stat, that goes some way towards evening out mechanical effectiveness.

Mind you, even in the tightly balanced 4e, it was often said that the difference between an optimized character and non-optimized character was less than 20%.

A player who trades off primary stats for secondary stats is making a deliberate choice for breadth rather than depth. That's a completely reasonable decision, but I don't think it correlates to roll disparities where (for instance) the good roller has depth and breadth, while the poor roller has less of both.

The disconnect here, as I see it, is that Sacrosanct doesn't see the mechanical capacity to impact play as being significant, vis-a-vis 5e's array/point-buy vs. rolling. Worst case scenario, array/point buy player has 17 in their primary stat while the rolling player rolled an 18 and was able to jack that up to 20 via racial bonuses. In which case, we're talking about a total difference of +2. 10% difference.

Better than that.

If the typical success range is 12 in 20 (ie 9+ on d20 - with +2 prof and +2 stat we're positing a 13 AC/DC), and the +2 increases it to 14 in 20 (ie 7+ on d20), then the increase in effectiveness is plus one-sixth

If we're looking at damage rolls, then there's also the possibility of an increase in damage rolls, say from an average of 6.5 per hit to 8.5 per hit, which is 17/13. Combined with 7/6, that's 119/78 or about one-third more effective (against some 1 HD creatures the bonus damage will be overkill, but the increased damage floor of 5 rather than 3 hp damage guarantees more one-shot kills).

5e's bounded accuracy mitigates this problem a good deal. The game is designed so that even characters of differing level can work together.

I think it's a fair question if, in the course of play, a mixed point-buy/roll 4d6-low group would find that the rolling group was impacting play more to a significant degree. If we assume a player will generally make 5 rolls per encounter, that hypothetical character with the +2 advantage is getting 1 more success roll every two encounters. If the group had not done the math, would that even be noticeable?

If one character has an 18 and two 16s, and another has (say) a 17 and two 14s, I think that difference will be noticeable in play. The stronger character will be rolling with a systematic +1 bonus. The system doesn't regard a +1 sword or ring as negligible, nor a +1 increase in proficiency. Even a 10% increase if effectiveness will make itself felt over the course of play, I think.

I agree with the bolded part. Am curious whether your remarks assume one PC per player, or if your opinions hold even for campaigns where each player has a whole character tree. That seems like a pretty crucial playstyle difference to me, and I hypothesize that the one-per-player playstyle is less tolerant of PC variance because the stakes are so much higher. Can you help me falsify this hypothesis by confirming/denying?

I think a character tree set-up would absolutely change this, yes. Likewise an assumption of high turnover in PCs, where your "regression to the mean" becomes a factor.

In that sort of game, there is no assumption that a particular determinate PC will be the player's main vehicle for having an impact on the fiction over the course of the game.

 

[pemerton]

An alternate hypothesis would concern pillars of play. I run a fairly exploration-heavy game, so "engaging in conflict as the core of play" doesn't really apply as far as I've seen. It's more "engaging in problem solving."

<snip>

Maybe in a game more focused on combat, stats might be more crucial to determining whether you have "a meaningful chance of impacting" the result of combats. Maybe.

Since those with great stats are more likely to do things that their great stats call for they are specifically not engaging in role play and earning Inspiration. They're just doing what the data says, that's roll play.

Low score characters that succeed are going to have to do things in the social and exploration tiers that the high stat player is more likely to ignore, because "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."

Since my low score characters will be succeeding at two tiers while you are succeeding at one I would expect the DM to reward Inspiration and XP for that behavior.

There seems to be some sort of equating of "conflict" with combat; and of "conflict" (and combat) with "not roleplay". That's an approach to the game that is very foreign to me.

If you assume that there is no conflict or pressure outside of combat; that outside of combat there is no mechanical action resolution; and that mechanical action resolution is at odds with roleplaying; then I can see how you would think that stats don't matter to roleplaying. Again, that's a set of assumptions that is very foreign to how I play the game.

If the game focuses on a certain sort of exploration rather than on conflict, though, then I can see that mechanical action resolution, and hence stats, may not matter. I would think of that as a certain sort of Gygaxian or Moldvay-style play. Though that's not an approach to the game that I would associate with "roleplaying" in the sense that the Inspiration rule are addressing.

 

[SteveC]

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

In a game like D&D, not at all: what happens in play, happens. "What's past is prologue."

There are a lot of other games where this keeps up, where character advancement is a fixed value (Fate, Hero system are two I can think of) but in D&D the rewards you get are the result of play, and that matters.

I just prefer that everyone start on the same mechanical playing field.

 

[SteveC]

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.

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.

Yes, I don't prefer to play in a game where some people start of better mechanically than others. This is surprising someone? I mean, the majority of the games that are released these days don't use this method, so it must appeal to some people, after all. And the bonus is nothing like choosing to wear a particular kind of armor, because that's a choice. If I have a choice what my stats are, they're going to be a point-buy or an array... and that's a choice. Like wearing the right or wrong armor.

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.

What happens in play is just that. When a +1 weapon appears, someone gets it, and someone is left out. That's something that happens in play, based on the decisions people at the game make, and I'm fine with that.

It seems like you and I don't like the same kinds of games. That's fine: enjoy. Just don't think you're doing anything "better" than I am, m'kay?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It seems like you and I don't like the same kinds of games. That's fine: enjoy. Just don't think you're doing anything "better" than I am, m'kay?

You know if people were not so prone to use stupid loaded words like whine and baby and jeluse or sour grapes these threads would be mutch nicer places....


I also have laugh at people saying +1 doesn't matter well skipping my examples where Mitch higher variance accrued... If my high roll is 14 and your is 18 you choose aa race that give +2 to that stat and I don't that is already +3 different...and at level4 you choose a feat and I choose to get closer to your stat... You could have 3 feats before I catch up on stats....

The real world isn't fair... I see no reason a game can't be

 

[spinozajack]

Because D&D isn't fair to begin with. The d20 roll decides if you live or die from that attack.

What I suspect is many people are pretending to enjoy dice games but actually rebelling against the system. It's not only at character creation or rolling hit points, such players who think stat rolling is awful, in my experience, almost always turned out to be the ones who think an unlucky dice roll that killed their character is "unfair". And why play unfair games, right? And then they storm off after throwing the dice across the room. Immature. Player. Gone. Goodbye.

D&D isn't fair. It's how you deal with it that matters. DMs fudging dice rolls to prevent your PC from dying is just more proof that people actually don't play by the dice, or by the rules. The rules as they are written work, and work well.

The d20 having agency in the game is a feature, not a bug. Stat rolling prevents cookie cutter PCs. If I was playing a variant human with stat buying, I would take a 17 in my main stat and a feat to make it 18, every time. If I can craft the entirety of my character, why not craft hit points too? Why not craft when they die? Why not write books instead of play games where a single d20 roll can kill off your beloved PC?

At a certain point you have to admit that it's pretty absurd to play a game with dice as a foundational aspect of the game, and then take every possible chance to avoid those dice having any lasting mechanical impact. What I see when I see posts like "I don't like my character's long life to be determined by one set of dice rolls", is that no number of dice rolls greater than 0 that determine the end of that life is going to be acceptable in the end.

Plenty of players can't handle their PCs dying by a fair dice roll, gracefully. These players are not welcome at my table. If your character dies, make a new one. But I think it's more than fair to let people who risk dice rolling having more 17s or 18s than someone playing it safe with point buy.

Play it safe, or roll the dice. That's already more of a choice than anyone gets in real life. Does that orc you just killed, have that choice? To not be an orc, but be a fair maiden? The game is playing a role, and point buy makes that role that of a hero with no major flaws or standout physical or mental attributes. That's limiting. I think Wizards made a great choice by limiting point buy to 15 max. Otherwise the min maxers would always take point buy instead of being stuck with playing a character with a couple negative stats if they want to risk it.

If you do do dice rolling, you need to not fudge the results though, that is definitely not fair or balanced. Because otherwise you might as well have the DM say "here's your super PC array in my game : 18 17 17 15 13 12 8"

 

[spinozajack]

Also: did you mean to imply that most/all people who prefer point buy are "immature" gamers with an "entitlement complex"? And that "expecting a PC to last" inherently means the DM pulling punches? Because the first is pretty blatantly insulting, and the second would mean you aren't very good at accepting others' gaming preferences, neither of which I think you actually want to communicate.

I think entitled players are entitled players, whatever stat generation method they pick. Entitled players are bad, from my perspective, because they often end up leaving in a huff and quitting a game if too many "unfair" (but actually perfectly fair, since they decided to play a game where the dice have agency) things happen to their PCs.

The expectation that your PC will survive to the end of a campaign or die a heroic death is an entitlement. It's a feature to which they are not entitled in my games. I don't guarantee PCs won't die, or die suddenly, because I play by the rules. If the rules say your PC has died, he's dead. Sorry. If your gaming preferences mean you can't handle your PC dying or being mechanically not perfectly balanced against every other member of the group, then D&D is not a game that supports that. D&D is not perfectly balanced, but having one PC with a +2 to hit over another isn't going to break the game in 5th edition.

And if you play the game well at my table, and don't complain when the dice give you lemons, you'll find the gods of treasure parcels are more than generous and rewarding for your piety to the whims of the dice gods. A character who played a PC well, with a lower strength score, would be far more likely to find a +3 weapon than a +1 weapon, or even gauntlets of ogre power which is extremely rare in my game.

If your stats are the only thing that make you feel connected to your character, that's not really roleplaying to my mind.

But I still give people the choice to use point buy, however I encourage people to roll the dice instead because it adds some variety and the odds of getting at least one 17 or 18 are pretty good. If the rest of your stats suck, then you might die sooner when you fail a check or a saving throw, but that's not my problem. I'm not here to guarantee that PCs do not die, I wouldn't be playing D&D if I was.

D&D PCs are not immortal, so any contrivances to make them effectively immortal (such as dice fudging when it matters) go against the entire purpose of rolling dice to begin with. D&D is founded on the unpredictability and unfairness of dice. That's what makes it so spectacular.

I say "unfairness" of dice, because people tend to think what's fair is their PCs always winning. When in reality, the dice whims are the fairest thing of all. They just don't care. What's more fair than blind justice? You can already tilt the odds in your favor in many ways. But sometimes they tilt against you.