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

[GMforPowergamers]

My answer isn't to "give" them anything. My answer is to remind them that, if the issue is important, they have means to redress it within the game.

wait... so your answer to "I don't like this," is "There is a theoretical fix that MIGHT come up..."???

How do you know you aren't going to have fun with lower stats if none of the role playing has actually occurred?

well that need a lot more filling out of the scenero... because just low stats are not by themselves a game killer all of the time, but they can be. For the sake of this argument the scenario must be a game killer for the PC in question... I have seen the same player have a ball with odd stats and great stats and poor stats, then not have fun with low stats later, or earlier... the point isn't "Everyone hates low stats always" its "How do you handle when someone doesn't like there stats"

If I sit down and make the only spell caster in the game and I end up with str and dex both at 7, and a con of 10, but a 16 int and 14s for wis and cha... I don't care if the fighter has an 18,18,18,13,11,12 set if stats at all... but if I am playing a fighter with a 16 str 14 dex and con and int,wis and cha all 10 or less, and the guy next to me is playing a cleric with a 18 str 12 dex 16 con 14 int 17 wis and 15 cha... I all of a sudden realize the cleric is going to be a better fighter then our fighter...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

If the players want to pick stats then let them. But if we agree to something first and then based on the results you want to change the rules that's where I have the problem. If you say "Let's roll and then if we are not happy we pick stats" I'm fine with that. Honestly, as long as the players all agree then I don't really care how they do it. I just don't like it when we all agree on one thing and then the results come in and one player now has a problem with it. If you want to put in a safety net then let's do that first not after the after the fact.



They seem to since one of the arguments from the non rolling people is they don't like it when another player has better stats then they do.

so again I ask you in the scerio where playe A comes to the table and b,c,d,and e already made characters, and asks "Can I just take an array that is about average of theres" instead of rolling... aka no cheating or going back on there word... is that a compromise you would be willing to hear without accuseing them of being a problem or sour grapes or any other insult?

 

[S_Dalsgaard]

For me standard array/point buy have several advantages over rolling stats and few drawbacks.

1. Players can make their characters without DM supervision (I trust my players, but if they rolled their stats at home, they would still have to run it by me, whether they could reroll a particularly bad set of stats).
2. It starts players of at a somewhat equal footing. It is true that their abilities at optimizing and in-game events will quickly create differences between the characters, but if the best optimizer also rolls the best stats, the difference in power level quickly gets very unwieldy for me as DM (we can rule out magic items, as I rarely hand out anything of significant power, like Gauntlets of Ogre Power). It is like randomly determining who gets a 10 m. head start in a 100 m. dash and having Usain Bolt winning the coin toss/dice roll.
3. It might give a bit less variance in character creation but we haven't played nearly enough to make that noticeable.

As a DM I always use array/point buy and that is non-negotiable. As a player I also prefer it, but I wouldn't walk from a game that required dice rolling stats.

Lastly, I do find it quite offensive when people try to suggest that the way I prefer my D&D is badwrongfun or that it is whining to prefer non-random determination of stats to avoid too much disparity in power between PCs. Just because dice are involved to determine some things, doesn't mean they have to rule everything. I wouldn't want to chose my feats by random dice rolls for example (I know that is an extreme), and making some things determined by not rolling (no matter what the rules say), doesn't make it any less true D&D.

 

[spinozajack]

see again... instead of talking about any of the examples of "Hey lets all be adults and talk about me not having fun because I feel overshadowed" you jump to "crybabies" and "throw dice" please tell me any anti roll stats that have ever said that is how we would react?

here comes the some insults... infact so bad that I can't belive it's a mistake. You equate someone saying "Hey I don't think rolling stats always ends up with a fair spread" or someone saying "I'm not having fun here my stats are far lower then his" with those cry babies... even if they are perfectly adult and polite in how they raise the issue...

It's no mistake. Rolling stats doesn't lead to a fair spread, because life isn't fair. Why should D&D worlds be more fair with respect to one's mental or physical attributes than it is in real life? Why should PCs be spared the harsh reality that every human being is subject to? Oh right, they aren't. I allow point buy, so you can skip it. But point buy doesn't lead to exceptional PCs. You pick, risk some negatives to get some higher pluses, or take the safe route. That is so fair it's almost mind boggling that anyone would even consider it unfair.

I don't want every PC to have the exact same total bonus. Low bonuses often lead to interesting characters, because they tend to work harder to get good, don't rush into combat every chance they get, don't do reckless things, and tend to play more intelligently and consciously and get more immersed in the story.

I don't see why everyone should be Conan or King Arthur in a fantasy RPG. Or one two exceptionally strong or intelligent PCs per group is more than enough. If you want to be perfectly adequate, choose point buy. But then you have 0 chance of having an 18 at level 1. If you want to risk it, to get higher than 16 or 17, then you can. Up to you. Pick up the gun, or walk away. Take a chance to double your money or lose it all, or walk away with what you have.

You can get a 20 in your main stat after a few months of playing, no matter what you rolled, anyway. This makes the "unfairness" of rolling not giving the same maximum bonus each time completely moot. That kind of nit picking every last +1 matters only to min maxers, in my experience. I like min maxing too, so I usually risk it all to get at least one 18. An 18 in your main stat usually matters more than your total stat bonus anyway.

You could have a perfectly viable PC with 18, 10, 10, 8, 8, 8.

Don't take personal offense when none was given towards you. It's uncalled for. This is small potatoes. The much bigger deal here is the idea that you have to be able to deal with low dice rolls when you sign up and join this game. If you can't, then no, I don't want to game with such a person and do consider them crybabies and will call that to their face. I don't mince words, people like that about me. Bluntness is honest.

If you think your character is "overshadowed" by a single +1 advantage by your neighbor, then yes, that is by definition what a "rollplayer" is. It's not like using point buy doesn't lead to viable characters in 5e, it absolutely does and by level 4 or 8 you will have that 18 or 20 and be caught up. If you then complain about not using those slots for feats, then yes, again, that's what a powergamer is, and I have zero sympathy. Cry me a river.

The dice are King in D&D. Respect them. Kiss the ring. That's what D&D is all about. If you can't handle randomness (which is inherently unfair from the point of view of equality of outcomes), don't play a dice game.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Lastly, I do find it quite offensive when people try to suggest that the way I prefer my D&D is badwrongfun or that it is whining to prefer non-random determination of stats to avoid too much disparity in power between PCs. Just because dice are involved to determine some things, doesn't mean they have to rule everything. I wouldn't want to chose my feats by random dice rolls for example (I know that is an extreme), and making some things determined by not rolling (no matter what the rules say), doesn't make it any less true D&D.

No worries. Your way isn't badwrongfun. Have a good game.

 

[Crothian]

so again I ask you in the scerio where playe A comes to the table and b,c,d,and e already made characters, and asks "Can I just take an array that is about average of theres" instead of rolling

No.

I would ask the players that did make their characters if they liked them and were happy with their results. I'm not going to give one person special treatment so I need to make sure everyone else is happy and gets the same offer as player A. Then I'd tell player A, and anyone else that might be interested in it, that if he wants he can have the average scores of the created characters and assign them as he wishes.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I don't understand the bolded text, but as far as "choose your own stats" goes: in GURPS I'd allow it.

When you are the new kind on the block and even when the players are basically honest and good guys, what they say may not turn out to be true. Look around this and similar threads and you can see that there are a lot of unofficial rules about giving the player another chance when the dice go bad.

I had an experience where I was entering a campaign, I rolled up my stats and talked over my idea for the PC with the DM, but it ended up sucking eggs in actual play. I rolled using their official rules and had reasonable luck, but while my PC was the moral equivalent of 36 point buy (3e), every single other PC was the in the realm of 46+ point buy -- that one or two players would roll that well was plausible, but that 6 of 6 would do so, not so much. It was not just the stats, but a host of secret house rules that favored one kind of build over other kinds. It was a bit of a learning experience for both me and the DM, but we eventually worked it out.

So, yes, if I were new to a group starting a fresh campaign, I would hold back and see how things unfolded during chargen. If not sure, it can be wise to see the lay of the land and then try to fit in.

 

[billd91]

For me standard array/point buy have several advantages over rolling stats and few drawbacks.

1. Players can make their characters without DM supervision (I trust my players, but if they rolled their stats at home, they would still have to run it by me, whether they could reroll a particularly bad set of stats).
2. It starts players of at a somewhat equal footing. It is true that their abilities at optimizing and in-game events will quickly create differences between the characters, but if the best optimizer also rolls the best stats, the difference in power level quickly gets very unwieldy for me as DM (we can rule out magic items, as I rarely hand out anything of significant power, like Gauntlets of Ogre Power). It is like randomly determining who gets a 10 m. head start in a 100 m. dash and having Usain Bolt winning the coin toss/dice roll.
3. It might give a bit less variance in character creation but we haven't played nearly enough to make that noticeable.

As a DM I always use array/point buy and that is non-negotiable. As a player I also prefer it, but I wouldn't walk from a game that required dice rolling stats.

Lastly, I do find it quite offensive when people try to suggest that the way I prefer my D&D is badwrongfun or that it is whining to prefer non-random determination of stats to avoid too much disparity in power between PCs. Just because dice are involved to determine some things, doesn't mean they have to rule everything. I wouldn't want to chose my feats by random dice rolls for example (I know that is an extreme), and making some things determined by not rolling (no matter what the rules say), doesn't make it any less true D&D.

To borrow the same basic construction:

For me rolling stats has several advantages over point buying stats and few drawbacks.

1. Players can discover their characters which promotes spontaneity and helps players who develop ruts work their way out of them.
2. It starts classes with different degrees of attribute dependence on a more equal footing because there is no compensated stat dumping to boost single-attribute classes.
3. It might give a lucky player a little bit of an advantage from time to time but this isn't a detraction from the other PCs - it's an enhancement of the party as a whole.

As a DM I always use stat rolling and that is non-negotiable. As a player I also prefer it, but I wouldn't walk from a game that required point buy stats.

Lastly, I do find it quite offensive when people try to suggest that the way I prefer my D&D is badwrongfun or that it is unfair to have variations in characters' ability scores. Just because some PCs are a few points better in their check modifiers, doesn't mean they have to rule everything. I wouldn't want to base my fun on how successful another players is, and seeing some variations in mechanical success doesn't make it any less true D&D.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

When you are the new kind on the block and even when the players are basically honest and good guys, what they say may not turn out to be true. Look around this and similar threads and you can see that there are a lot of unofficial rules about giving the player another chance when the dice go bad.... So, yes, if I were new to a group starting a fresh campaign, I would hold back and see how things unfolded during chargen. If not sure, it can be wise to see the lay of the land and then try to fit in.

But what does "If all these posters are so serious about being openminded and fair in their pro-rolling views, then there should be nothing wrong with the player holding back agreement to see how the chargen plays out in this group" mean? What's "holding back agreement" here? That's the part I didn't understand in your original post.

If you're just saying that you'd take point buy, then sure, go for it. I wouldn't let you veto everyone else's ability to roll though, especially because you'd have to retcon existing characters. I would let you grumble about it ("withhold agreement"?) but I'd expect you to be mature in how much griping you did or you would no longer be welcome.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

2. It starts classes with different degrees of attribute dependence on a more equal footing because there is no compensated stat dumping to boost single-attribute classes.

This is a great point.