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

[SteveC]

Just speaking for my own tastes, but the the lack of randomness in character generations is part of my lack of interest in those games. Personally, I am more fascinated by something like Traveller, letting random generation reign supreme. If we could make D&D char Gen even more random, I would be happy. Dungeon Crawl Classics is a lot of fun that way.

Certainly agree with you, just as I was only speaking of my tastes. Few things in RPGs rise above the level of personal taste or opinion (something that took me waaaaaay too long to figure out).

What I was just trying to point out is that there's a whole world of games outside of the paradigm of games like AD&D and a lot of people never experience them. Rolling for character creation is something of an anomaly these days, outside of games like AD&D or the classic OSR games. I'm just surprised to see how many people have just never heard of games outside of them.

In this thread there are a few folks who approach even the idea of non random character generation like it's something that never happens or is never done... and that's just not true, even for D&D.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I think it matters to people- some people, at least- as to WHY others at the table are not having fun.

If you're not having fun because the campaign is a mess, or the system doesn't support your favored playstyle or PC concepts or what have you, those are often rectifiable.

If, OTOH, your fun is being diminished in part or wholly because of the good fortune of others at the table, that is a problem with deeper roots that some may not feel like dealing with.

The swings of certain kinds of fortune are more rectifiable than others.

The analogy has often been made in this thread that stats are "just like" magic items, in terms of the swings of fortune. But it is not really within the realm of normal for one PC to have a +3 sword while everyone else has vanilla +1 or +0 weapons. If it did happen I would expect that to be a transient situation, as other good items appear, or something that the PCs themselves can address in character, in divvying future items. And, frankly, any DM who created that kind of disparity and could not be bothered to ever help the group mitigate possible problems that arise would simply be called "crappy" by most players, and nobody would be shy about badmouthing that DM here on this forum.

Similarly I do not think it is normal or auspicious for one meleeist to have an 18 Str while the other meleeists have a 12 Str (or 12 Dex). The difference here is that the tools for address possible problems from this scenario are simply more limited.

So, at least at a superficial level, these two scenarios are mechanically similar. The difference is the first one is easy to fix and DMs who are unwilling to try are crappy DMs, and the second one is hard to fix but we should not care because the dice decided during chargen.

I do recognize that it is completely legitimate to really like dice, just because. I am just pointing out that certain arguments about why I am supposed to not care about variances caused by dice are simply illogical, when viewed in the larger context.

 

[spinozajack]

I just rolled 4d6 drop the lowest and got...

12, 11, 11, 13, 11, 13.

Ugh. Now as the DM would you let me re-roll, or make me suffer with the most boring stat array ever for the next year in your campaign?

Play a human (14 dex, 14 int) with archery style for +2 to hit, or a wizard that doesn't rely on blasting stuff, and you can easily have the equivalent of an 18 in your attack stat or a perfectly viable character. If you played this character without whining about it, as a DM I might even drop a belt of ogre power or headband of intellect or something for you to find. The trick is, don't expect to "always come out ahead" when you roll dice, because that's foolish. Instead, roll with the punches and make your character interesting, and mechanically viable by picking strong choices mechanically. Those with higher natural aptitudes are often lazy or lack determination, let this be a chance to make your character the best wizard ever. By level 12 you could have that 20 main stat and that's more than good enough.

You can dual wield throwing daggers and shoot two of them per round as a level 1 fighter with a +6 to hit on each one.

Take sharpshooter as your level 1 human variant feat and boost dex to 16 at level 4. By level 5 you will be doing comparable damage to an axe wielding GWM barbarian with 20 strength. Or take a non-variant human and get lots of +1s from all those odd ability scores evening out. Or play a character not focused on offense, it's easy to make PCs that are perfectly good at contributing to the group without awesome stats.

If you picked rolling instead of point buy method in my game, to risk low rolls in order to get the chance of getting high ones, and you rolled low, that's too bad. Fair's fair. I would make you stick to those stats if you decided to risk 4d6 drop lowest and ended up with middling ability scores.

Don't roll the dice if you won't want to pay the piper when you get snake eyes. Don't play a game with dice in it if you don't like the fact that dice just as often as not, let you down. That's what makes the game exciting.

Playing it safe means taking no risks. Your next rolled PC could have three 18s at level 1. One of the PCs in my group rolled exactly that. Well, two 18s and a 17, a 16, and one 7. Nothing that a couple well-placed stat boosts can't remedy.

In 5th edition the average PC has one 16 at level 1, you're only -1 away from that. Boo hoo.

 

[spinozajack]

A friend of mine just rolled 12.11.13.11.12.10.

We'd have the best party ever.

I want to be the commoner! What will you play, the guard? Maybe a tavern wench? Or how about a really awesome baker? We can watch real adventurers who opted for point buy to come through the tavern, while we dream of another life. Alas.

The biggest sign of a poor player is one who equates their stats with whether they can accomplish stuff. If you are given lemons, make lemonade. A superior player can outwit, and out play, and have more fun than one who focuses solely on being -1 behind their classmates. Sometimes repeating a grade makes you stronger.

Remember the episode with Ace Rimmer in Red Dwarf?

I could make a PC with a 14 main stat work quite well. Human variant, Archery style, sharpshooter, dual wield thrown daggers, done. Maybe multiclass into rogue or wizard and boost dex every 4 levels. Or play any caster who focuses on spells that don't rely on saving throws too much, at least until I can boost Int a few points.

5th edition is designed with the ability score caps in place to put an upper limit on the difference between party member's stats, across the levels. You could take one boost to 16 and leave it at that and be perfectly able to hit stuff from level 1 all the way to 20.

The only thing ruining your PC's dreams of greatness is a lack of determination and will to succeed. There is probably a life lesson in there somewhere, but I don't want to sound patronizing

Plus, wizards don't have all that many uses for feats yet, so it's easy to play one and simply boost Int at every opportunity. I would personally do a human variant archer, wear medium armor (too low strength for the higher end heavy armor), and then multiclass at level 2 to wizard and continue from there. The 12 I would put in constitution for Con saves.

 

[spinozajack]

You seem to be completely misunderstanding something very important. "Cookie cutter PCs" means different things to different people. To me, it means that even characters that are quite similar at the outset can reasonably progress along different interesting paths. Stats are not the primary means of differentiating PCs to those who roleplay by playing a role, rather than hoping dice does the work for us.

Given that roleplaying stuff like backgrounds and traits and so forth are up to the player, those are not what people are complaining about with cookie cutter PCs, they're talking about mechanically significant differences.

If I had Bob the fighter who died, then brought in Rob or Foo foo or something else, with a totally different background, hairstyle, philosophy, but the exact same stats, same HP, same feats, yes, I would call that cookie cutter. Putting a couple smarties on your oatmeal cookie doesn't make it not an oatmeal cookie, does it? Maybe that's too philosophical.

I agree that your stats and role are quite different, that's kind of my point. Cookie cutter PCs can be cookie cutter due to always being played or roleplayed the same way, that's true as well. But that's not what people refer to in these discussions. At least, it's not what I was referring to when I brought up cookie cutter. I can't imagine anything more cookie cutter than knowing that every single level 3 fighter with 14 con in the land has exactly 16 strength, 12 dex, and 22 hit points.

Feat choice uniformity for power gaming is a whole other issue. I nerf the polearm master and +10 damage feats in my games too. They are way too strong compared to the other feats so you rarely see those other feats in play.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Similarly I do not think it is normal or auspicious for one meleeist to have an 18 Str while the other meleeists have a 12 Str (or 12 Dex). The difference here is that the tools for address possible problems from this scenario are simply more limited.

True...but OTOH, I have run Str or Dex 12 melee characters in D&D going back to 1Ed, happily. It CAN be done.

To continue your analogy, there are all kinds of published adventures in which one or two- and no more- powerful artifacts is acquired by a party member. There is no subsequent balancing.

IME, the mere fact that someone else's PC has better stats or better gear doesn't affect MY fun to the negative. I LIKE having a powerful ally on my team.

 

[Crothian]

this is what I don't under stand at all, what difference does it make WHY I am not having fun....

The reason always matters. How can you solve a problem if you can't figure out the reason the problem exists? If the reason you are not having fun is because you feel Bob's character is outshining yours then it can make you look jealous and petty especially if the rest of the group does not see it that way.

If the rest of the group is having fun and you are not why should the rest of the group be expected to stop and cater to your needs over theirs?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

True...but OTOH, I have run Str or Dex 12 melee characters in D&D going back to 1Ed, happily. It CAN be done.
-snip-
IME, the mere fact that someone else's PC has better stats or better gear doesn't affect MY fun to the negative. I LIKE having a powerful ally on my team.

Once again... something can be fun sometimes and not others... and something can get on your nerves no matter what it is... AND NO ONE COMPLAINS WHEN THEY ARE HAVING FUN...

to put it another way... I don't like very spicey food, but we have a place in town that makes a spicey burger I eat but don't love... if every Saturday night my friends wanted to eat there, I would do so fine the first week, and say nothing (the burger is good) the second week I would mostly just say 'didn't we do that last week' and eat another spicy burger... on week 3 if everyone wanted to do it I would complain "I don't want to eat there, lets do something different this week," but if everyone agreed I would go aling... if at the end of the month someone said lets do that place again I would be mad... they were not paying attention to me at all. I was no longer having fun at our group activity... It is well in my rights to complain that I want to do something different.

when people say "Well I like the spicy restaurant and I don't see why you don't" they are missing a major point of friendship... I wouldn't complain if I was enjoying it... so we need to compromise, and if your compromise is "I said so, we do it my way or get out" you are a lousy friend...

if someone says "I am not having fun playing my weaker character" it isn't your place to tell them they should have made it more fun... they are saying the GAME isn't fun, so either change the game or make some compromise... don't insult them...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The reason always matters. How can you solve a problem if you can't figure out the reason the problem exists? If the reason you are not having fun is because you feel Bob's character is outshining yours then it can make you look jealous and petty especially if the rest of the group does not see it that way.

If the rest of the group is having fun and you are not why should the rest of the group be expected to stop and cater to your needs over theirs?

the reason "you are jealous and petty" is BS and you know it...

"I am not having fun with my 14 str fighter and his 18 str cleric showing me up in combat" is a valid complaint.

or to pull one from my gamieng history (I was the DM) "My Paliden/fighter who is supposed to be a world class swordsman is being 1 uped by my younger brother in world (a warlock/rogue) when he is supposed to be a con man" was a vailid complaint... it was an issue of one being a much better min maxer then the other. In that case once kurt said something, everyone pretty much a greed it was BS... and the big issue was it wasn't just one thing... it was class/feats/magic items/and stats all adding up.

the same player (paul who played the younger brother) got us to SO a whole game after a fellow player nick named it the Azrathel show (that was pauls character Azrathel).

When someone tells me they are not having fun I try to fix it... I don't just assume they need to 'grow as a person'

as for the rest of the group needing to stop... why would making the game more fair for one character stop the enjoyment... unless the enjoyment came from being over someone

 

[Crothian]

the reason "you are jealous and petty" is BS and you know it...

"I am not having fun with my 14 str fighter and his 18 str cleric showing me up in combat" is a valid complaint.

Sorry, but it can make you look and sound petty and jealous. Especially when the complaint you see as 100% valid the rest of the table does not agree with. You remember that one time the cleric weighed with his mace and killed 6 goblins. But you forget the times that the cleric had to stay in the back and support with spells when your fighter saved the day. People perceive and remember things different. Some people remember more when they felt their character was being outclassed and focus more on the negatives then the positives.

When someone tells me they are not having fun I try to fix it... I don't just assume they need to 'grow as a person'

as for the rest of the group needing to stop... why would making the game more fair for one character stop the enjoyment... unless the enjoyment came from being over someone

Because presumably you are asking the campaign to stop because you want a new character. It really depends then how you expect the problem to be fixed. In the example of the cleric and the fighter what is your plan to fix the problem? The group is say 5th level everyone has a character they like and enjoy except apparently you. All the characters have important background that intertwine and have a great chemistry and history together that matters to the campaign at large (I say that because that's how I run all my games). The group does what it can to showcase your character just like they do every character because that's what good groups do. You still feel that the cleric being better at melee then your fighter detracts from your enjoyment. You have voiced this to the group and me your DM wants to know what you want to do to fix the problem. So, what in your mind is the solution?