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

[Lanefan]

If you had GOP by level 3 or 4, you had a very generous DM or a Monty Haul style game IME.

Ioun Stones, Manuals/Tomes, and a handful of other items (Egg of Reason, Gem of Insight, Pearl of Wisdom, etc.) could increase ability scores beside STR,

Indeed, but almost always only by one point. Wishes could also jack up your scores, given enough money and time.

The Gauntlets and Girdle jump your strength up by a whole bunch, and ot a fixed value regardless what you started at.

Sort of true. That lower in 1E did mean an additional 10% chance to fail to learn a spell as well as fewer minimum and maximum spells per level, not to forget that INT 14 could never learn 8th or 9th level spells (if you got that far...). Now, none of that directly impacts combat, sure, but having a diminished spell selection does have impact potential on combat.

True. More importantly, at least IME, mages are usually the ones most called upon to make roll-under Int checks; and with these every point matters in the long run.

That said, I could probably run a perfectly decent mage in 1e with only about 5 spells known per level, provided I got to choose the five spells. I'd take a hit to versatility, sure, but I'd still be 95+% as useful in the field as a mage who can learn 15 spells per level.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I prefer 3's version of GOP and belts - they add to your existing strength up to a limit. Makes a lot more sense to me.

I prefer AD&D's as the magic simply makes you "X" strong. Variable increases (a la 3E) lead to stacking stuff which I never liked personally. But, to each their own!

The Gauntlets and Girdle jump your strength up by a whole bunch, and ot a fixed value regardless what you started at.

Yeah, they were really good IF you got them and (don't forget!) they never were destroyed. Magic items failed saves potentially when you failed them. I know many times those items were destroyed and the player felt the loss...

More importantly, at least IME, mages are usually the ones most called upon to make roll-under Int checks; and with these every point matters in the long run.

IME these didn't come up very often in AD&D, but yeah you always wanted the better score then!

I forgot to mention, of course, in AD&D, that 10% XP bonus of INT 16 is probably the GREATEST difference compared to the INT 14...

That said, I could probably run a perfectly decent mage in 1e with only about 5 spells known per level, provided I got to choose the five spells. I'd take a hit to versatility, sure, but I'd still be 95+% as useful in the field as a mage who can learn 15 spells per level.

That's part of the fear with the lower learn spell % though, you don't get to choose which ones you'd have. You can try for them, but you'll be denied half or so. I had a MU in AD&D who failed both fireball and lightning bolt... sigh.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It's a very specific niche build that's reliant on a lot of factors. I'm not going to yuck on someone's yum, I've just never seen anything that comes close to this, at least not at lower levels. Also very dependent on types of encounters and so on.

Yeah I’ve played bladesingers and tbh those spells slots I’d rather use to hit hard enough to take some heat, and be able to be useful in a wide array of situations via utility spells, rather than play like I’m not a mage at all, which is what it takes to never get hit or take significant damage as a BS.

 

[cbwjm]

I prefer 3's version of GOP and belts - they add to your existing strength up to a limit. Makes a lot more sense to me.

Was there a limit? I thought that 3e just granted a +4 enhancement bonus with no limit, or do you mean that the bonuses were limited?

 

[Oofta]

Was there a limit? I thought that 3e just granted a +4 enhancement bonus with no limit, or do you mean that the bonuses were limited?

The gauntlets added +2 to strength.

 

[Hussar]

What a strange thing to say. You're basically saying anyone who rolls random stats cheats, and we need to prove you wrong. Um...no. With a claim like that, you need to prove yourself right. Anecdotal information (especially one probably clouded by bias) isn't evidence. For example, my experience (using random rolling as a preferred method for 40+ years) is not that. I've had tables that were below, tables that were above, but most were around the same. There, I just showed you one. In fact, most folks who prefer random rolling often make the argument that having a low stat (lower than the lowest you can get in array--8) has created some really interesting and fun role-playing opportunities.

Then canvas the stats. Of those groups, how many averaged below a 25 point buy value? Have any?

Call it whatever you want. I really don’t care. But again the overwhelming preponderance of evidence is that for rolled groups average higher than baseline. Whether it’s just generous rolling methods or flat out cheating doesn’t really matter. The result is always the same.

I strongly doubt that you’ve ever played in a group that die rolled their characters where the group average is below 25 points. A single character? Sure. Maybe. But a group? Nope. Not buying it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Along with upcast false life it did save my bladesinger (a different one) from Behir Lightning in Out of The Abyss. Barely, but it saved her.

I did not say backfielders do not get attacked, but they don't get attacked as often as people on the front line and when they do they take less damage. Straight up a backline Wizard with a 10 constitution has exactly half of the hit points of a fighter with a 14 Constitution, but I would suggest a melee fighter gets targeted about twice as much (more than that if the party is tactically sound). So all else equal a Wizard with a 10 con SHOULD last the same amount of time - has half the hit points, but gets targeted half as much

However that is not the whole story, because he has false life, he actually has more than half as many hit points, and when the wizard does get targeted he has a higher AC (including shield spell), or he can get resistance through absorb elements, or he can cancel crits with silvery barbs, and in some cases he is wearing greater invisibility or popping in and out of a fog cloud and can't even be targeted at all because the big-bad-enemy spell is one you need to SEE someone to target. So he has more than half as many total hit points, gets targeted half as much and takes less damage when he is targeted. That all adds up to goes down less often.


When I am playing a bladesinger that is how I play. I cast Fear occasionally because it is so darn good as a spell and I misty step every now and then (or I just play a Shadar Kai), but everything else as far as spells is melee stuff, usually defensive spells or haste.

I've heard this strawman thrown around before and it does not work out in play, the bladesinger is typically faster and more mobile than the enemies she is facing, it is not just disengaging, they need to go around her burning movement when they do and on her turn she is going to pass them and be on the other side of them again. Dashing around the battlefield chasing a wizard while someone wails on you is not a winning strategy .... and that is only if they can get around her at all.

Second you are not doing a lot less damage than a fighter, that was true with the SCAG bladesinger, but it is not true with Tasha's bladesinger. An 8th level Bladesinger who maxes dexterity is going to be doing 5d8+10 to anyone who ignores her and moves to go get someone else (1d8+5 attack, 2d8+5 cantrip, 2d8 movement damage). That is an average of 33 points of damage if it all hits and it is 9 more than they would take if they did not "ignore" her. That is pretty heavy melee damage at 8th level, and if you are insistent about going after another party member she can get some of that with advantage too. For comparison a fighter with dueling is doing 2d8+14 plus whatever his subclass brings to the table, a fighter with a Maul is doing 4d6+10.

Finally, your AC is so high you can use mobility to seriously disrupt the enemey. This is one big difference with a fighter, with a fighter you generally close and hope that one enemy stays there, if you have sentinel you have a feat to help you force it sometimes for one enemy, but you are screwed if it is more than one or if you miss with your sentinel AOO. With a bladesinger you attack and then move to wherever you need to be to block the enemies and get in their way. You ignore AOOs, if the bad guy takes them, then someone else can kite in and out. A hasted bladesinger typically has a move of 80 or 90! Heck if the bad guy gets close, grapple your ally, take the dash haste action move him to where you want him, then go back in and still make a cantrip attack on the bad guy.

This is aside from the fact she can do at will fire damage, at will necrotic damage and at will thunder damage, meaning she can usually find a soft spot against enemies with resistance, which the fighter can't do without magic weapons and generally can't do at all in tier 2 if he put together a GWM-PAM build or something like that to spike his DPR and actually do significantly more damage than the bladesinger .... so yeah the Trolls are going to ignore the only person that can do at will fire damage to them!

Like I said last time, you and I have had this discussion exactly as much as you and I are going to have this discussion. Full stop.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Then canvas the stats. Of those groups, how many averaged below a 25 point buy value? Have any?

Call it whatever you want. I really don’t care. But again the overwhelming preponderance of evidence is that for rolled groups average higher than baseline. Whether it’s just generous rolling methods or flat out cheating doesn’t really matter. The result is always the same.

I strongly doubt that you’ve ever played in a group that die rolled their characters where the group average is below 25 points. A single character? Sure. Maybe. But a group? Nope. Not buying it.

So just calling people liars and cheats, based on nothing more than your own experience, which you falsely suggest is a “overwhelming preponderance of evidence”, none of which you actually provide.


Cute.

 

[Sacrosanct]

But again the overwhelming preponderance of evidence is that for rolled groups average higher than baseline.

What evidence?

 

[Hussar]

The evidence of years of this topic coming up and every single time the same results.