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

[FormerlyHemlock]

So, your current group, presuming die roll, looks like the -1 stat array?

Look, the point I'm trying to make here isn't about YOU. It's about the group. Even if your character actually is the -1 stat array, if the group is die rolled, it's very likely that the other characters are well ahead of the curve. And it's funny how all the "Well, it's no problem, just take this broken feat (which has been very extensively argued that it's broken) and you'll be fine".

A 4 PC group using standard array has a total of +20 in stat bonuses. Take a minute to canvas your current die rolled group and take things like level bumps and racial bonuses into account, and I'll bet dollars to donuts that your 4 PC group is somewhere in the neighbourhood of +30 or more for its total bonuses. I'll pay double if your group is actually LESS than +20.

Any takers?

Why would the group look like the -1 stat array? There are PCs in the group who have rotten stats, and other PCs who have mediocre stats, and others who have good stats, but are you suggesting that I have no right to an opinion unless every one of the PCs in every player's character tree rolls improbably poorly?

In any case, I was responding to the idea that a poor stat array was unplayable, and not to the truism that rolled stats have a higher variance than point buy stats and will therefore trend high in a group with lots of PCs. So polling for group averages isn't germane to the claim I was refuting.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Hang on, how did your Moon Druid get that feat? He needed three straight stat bumps to get that 20 Wis. Sorry, no feat for you. Even with a +2 from race, he starts at 15, which takes +5, and Mobility doesn't give you a Wis bonus. Of course, if you're taking Variant Human, you might be able to do it. But, you're still stuck failing virtually every non-Wis saving throw, and failing every non-Wis skill check.

Now compare to the fairly standard +1 Array die rolled PC. That same Moon Druid now has three additional feats and +1-3 on every saving throw and skill check. How much is that worth? Now multiply that by 4 PC's. How much is that worth?

Of course it's a variant human and I didn't bother to make that explicit because it's obvious. Three seconds of thinking showed you that--why didn't you just erase your "Sorry, no feat for you" statement after you realized your mistake? I even mentioned variant humans in the paragraph you quoted! Your alternative is to assume that I'm an idiot who can't divide 12 by 4. Bad assumption.

And no, I'm not stuck failing every skill check. Druids can cast Enhance Ability, which makes me rather good at skill checks if I know they're coming. I'm not fantastic at Con saves or Dex saves, but the variance on a d20 is high enough that I'm not hopeless at them either. I'll pass them some of the time and fail them a lot of the time, whereas a good Con score would let me pass them maybe half the time and fail them half the time. Not that much of a difference IMO--the best defense is to avoid making those Con saves in the first place.

In short, unlike you, I don't think that missing out on +2 from "standard array +1 normal human" is all that crippling. It's probably a 15-20% difference in efficiency but far from unplayable. You're paying too much attention to peak performance instead of operational efficiency.

Edit: wait a second, when you say, "That same Moon Druid now has three additional feats," what do you mean? Why would standard point buy have THREE additional feats? Are you giving up on 20 Wis or what? By my math you'd have one additional feat. If you rolled well you'd have two additional feats. How do you get to three?

 

[Hussar]

Why would the group look like the -1 stat array? There are PCs in the group who have rotten stats, and other PCs who have mediocre stats, and others who have good stats, but are you suggesting that I have no right to an opinion unless every one of the PCs in every player's character tree rolls improbably poorly?

In any case, I was responding to the idea that a poor stat array was unplayable, and not to the truism that rolled stats have a higher variance than point buy stats and will therefore trend high in a group with lots of PCs. So polling for group averages isn't germane to the claim I was refuting.

My point is, if die rolled PC's resulted in average, standard point buy value stats, then 4 randomly chosen PC's on your PC tree should result in about (given a bit of flinch factor, say +/-3) an aggregate of +20 for stat bonuses. But, I'll bet that they don't. I'll bet that if you picked 4 random PC's from your group's tree, nearly every time it will result in +25 or higher, because die rolled characters almost always result in higher values.

And it's funny you use the point of "improbably poorly". A drop of 2 on every stat is "improbably poorly"? Really? None of those rolls are particularly poor or high to be honest. They're pretty much what you SHOULD be seeing with a random die roll. A standard array is actually a bit high for 4d6 drop 1. Yet, a character that is slightly below average on each roll is now "improbably poor"?

Edit: wait a second, when you say, "That same Moon Druid now has three additional feats," what do you mean? Why would standard point buy have THREE additional feats? Are you giving up on 20 Wis or what? By my math you'd have one additional feat. If you rolled well you'd have two additional feats. How do you get to three?

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...hment-Or-overlooked-data/page63#ixzz3bswCIHJV

The irony here is that you complain about me not seeing the obvious when you ignored/misread my line about a +1 array group (ie every stat is +1 bonus higher than the standard array, meaning that the high stat starts at 18 or 19 depending on racial bonus, a single +1 stat bump feat and you've got that 20).

The other point is that the low stats are now a straight jacket. I can only make certain characters - a moon druid, or a specific kind of wizard or take specific feats - if I want to be effective. What if I take a halfling monk, because I want to play a halfing monk? Or something that doesn't fit with your suggestions? Am I still just as effective?

And, again, this is all beside the point. The issue is that the entire group if die rolled, will default to significantly higher bonuses, making the group as a whole considerably more powerful. Sure, a single character with an extra +1 isn't going to change anything. But, when the entire group, as a group, has pluses on virtually every stat over the baseline array, then you will get groups (and I really want to stress the fact that I'm talking about groups, not individual characters) with considerably more oomph than if you use point buy or standard array.

 

[S'mon]

But in second edition you literally couldn't even cast higher level spells unless you rolled well. And you couldn't boost your stats. No wonder why modern gamers don't play old school D&D, it's too "unfair".

In my Classic D&D game the Elf & the 2 M-Us all have INT 11, since it makes no difference to their
spellcasting (I house rule INT checks for spell acquisition, though). In 3e-5e though INT is used as the 'spell attack stat', so it needs to be high.

IME there is a big difference between pre-3e, where only the physical stats affect combat, and post-3e where every stat affects combat, and also the bonuses kick in much earlier & are generally larger.
Pre-3e works fine with rolled stats (though assign-as-desired wrecks the organic nature of stat rolling & should be avoided IMO); post-3e IME works best with point buy or array.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

My point is, if die rolled PC's resulted in average, standard point buy value stats, then 4 randomly chosen PC's on your PC tree should result in about (given a bit of flinch factor, say +/-3) an aggregate of +20 for stat bonuses. But, I'll bet that they don't. I'll bet that if you picked 4 random PC's from your group's tree, nearly every time it will result in +25 or higher, because die rolled characters almost always result in higher values.

Your math is wrong BTW. Point buy sets using variant humans will get you +7 plus a feat at first level, so you'd expect +28 for 4 point-buy PCs.


Anyway, that's tangential to the point I was responding to, but I'll oblige by pulling the 3 sets of character stats I have on hand from 5th level characters the players made last week and left with me. These are player-created NPCs:


15, 16, 10, 12, 10, 13 (Genasi): +7 including racial bonuses and one ASI.
16, 10, 14, 14, 8, 16 (Tiefling): +9 including racial bonuses and one ASI.
14, 12, 17, 12, 15, 13 (Aarakocra): +10 including racial bonuses and one ASI.


For comparison, a standard array using a variant human at 5th level would get you +8 (18 14 14 12 10 8) plus a feat. The standard array is mathematically gimped relative to die rolling: an average die roll would get you +8.72 plus a feat at that level. These PCs are the tiniest fraction below average: total +26 but expected value is +26.12. (In reality though, total plusses matters much less than plusses in prime requisites.)

And it's funny you use the point of "improbably poorly". A drop of 2 on every stat is "improbably poorly"? Really? None of those rolls are particularly poor or high to be honest. They're pretty much what you SHOULD be seeing with a random die roll. A standard array is actually a bit high for 4d6 drop 1. Yet, a character that is slightly below average on each roll is now "improbably poor"?

Standard deviation on 4d6 drop lowest is 2.847 according to rumkin, so you'd have to roll 2.62 standard deviations under to get an array one less than standard, if I'm not messing up my statistics here. That ought to happen about one in 416 times. You're postulating a group where all four PCs roll one under standard, so that should happen one in 416^4 times, or in other words it should happen in one out of twenty-nine billion tables (29,948,379,136). I'd call that improbable, yes.

Even if it were only a 20% chance of rolling one under, that would still be only 1 in 625 where everyone rolled substandard even if they only had one PC per player, which I don't. Having all my players roll in the bottom 20% for all their PCs is vanishingly improbable.

The irony here is that you complain about me not seeing the obvious when you ignored/misread my line about a +1 array group (ie every stat is +1 bonus higher than the standard array, meaning that the high stat starts at 18 or 19 depending on racial bonus, a single +1 stat bump feat and you've got that 20).

So... when you say "three extra feats" relative to my Moon Druid, you don't actually mean that you have 20 Wisdom and four feats? You mean that you start with Wis 17 (+1 higher than standard array), have +1 Wisdom from being human and spend one ASI for a grand total of three feats (two greater than my Moon Druid)? Because if there really is a way to have three feats more and 20 Wisdom than the Mobile 20 Wis Moon Druid 12 I'm all ears. I think you just did the math wrong though and there is no such way.

The other point is that the low stats are now a straight jacket. I can only make certain characters - a moon druid, or a specific kind of wizard or take specific feats - if I want to be effective. What if I take a halfling monk, because I want to play a halfing monk? Or something that doesn't fit with your suggestions? Am I still just as effective?

Eh, a halfling monk would be somewhat effective I guess due to halfling Lucky, especially at the kinds of things monks are good at (sneaking and scouting). It wouldn't be very good in combat compared to other possibilities--monks tend to be pretty MAD, and a monk can't really compete in combat with a same-stats fighter IMO unless he rolls substantially better than average: 17/17 looks like a monk, but 15/15 is pushing it and 13/13 is really marginal. You could find a way to make it work (using missile weapons or open hand flurry/Mobile) but you're kicking against the pricks here.

And, again, this is all beside the point. The issue is that the entire group if die rolled, will default to significantly higher bonuses, making the group as a whole considerably more powerful. Sure, a single character with an extra +1 isn't going to change anything. But, when the entire group, as a group, has pluses on virtually every stat over the baseline array, then you will get groups (and I really want to stress the fact that I'm talking about groups, not individual characters) with considerably more oomph than if you use point buy or standard array.

You should probably argue with someone who disagrees with you on that point. I have several times on this thread acknowledged the truth of the point in bold. It's right there in the math--the standard array is slightly worse than the mathematical average for rolled stats. Point buy is intentionally gimped!

I responded specifically to the mention of a low-stats array being "unplayable" under 3E rules--it's certainly not unplayable in 5E though!

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

IME there is a big difference between pre-3e, where only the physical stats affect combat, and post-3e where every stat affects combat, and also the bonuses kick in much earlier & are generally larger.
Pre-3e works fine with rolled stats (though assign-as-desired wrecks the organic nature of stat rolling & should be avoided IMO); post-3e IME works best with point buy or array.

I'm inclined to say the opposite: in AD&D, having Int 9 would gimp your mage's ability to learn spells/cast spells over 4th level (not that being gimped couldn't be fun). In 5E, even an Int 9 wizard can not only boost his Int to 19 over time, he can even learn/cast spells like Shapechange, Foresight, and True Polymorph without ever boosting his Int at all. An AD&D 18th level with Int 11 is merely a curiosity, not an archmage.

5E is much more forgiving of wizards with low stats than AD&D is.

 

[S'mon]

I'm inclined to say the opposite: in AD&D, having Int 9 would gimp your mage's ability to learn spells/cast spells over 4th level (not that being gimped couldn't be fun). In 5E, even an Int 9 wizard can not only boost his Int to 19 over time, he can even learn/cast spells like Shapechange, Foresight, and True Polymorph without ever boosting his Int at all. An AD&D 18th level with Int 11 is merely a curiosity, not an archmage.

5E is much more forgiving of wizards with low stats than AD&D is.

Well, my 1e PHB says you need INT 9 to be an MU and INT 10 to cast 5th level MU spells (INT 14 for 7th, INT 18 for 9th), so yes it's potentially a factor for high level play in that edition.

Classic D&D has no such rule though, but if it did then it would never affect the INT 11 Elf PC (max 5th level spells) and it would affect the INT 11 MUs only when they reached 12th level, after perhaps two years of weekly play. Most players creating PCs at 1st level won't worry about that, whereas -3 to your attack rolls & spell save DCs is a wee bit more immediate.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Well, my 1e PHB says you need INT 9 to be an MU and INT 10 to cast 5th level MU spells (INT 14 for 7th, INT 18 for 9th), so yes it's potentially a factor for high level play in that edition.

Not just for high-level play either. If you have Int 9, you can only know six spells maximum of each spell level, and you have only a 35% chance (per level) to learn a given spell even if you have access to it. Both are fairly hefty penalties which simply don't apply in 5E, hence why 5E is more forgiving of low-int wizards.

 

[Crothian]

Since fair has been talked about in this thread and what is and is not fair

"You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe."

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Since fair has been talked about in this thread and what is and is not fair

"You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe."

Markus!