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

[ECMO3]

I mentioned above the story of the player that had spectacular rolls and the one that had crap rolls (and no, it wasn't me)? That was a strict "you get what you get" table. The gal who had the high rolls eventually felt so guilty about it she committed suicide by goblin. The thing is that the DM and other players were oblivious to the fact that she did this. They thought it was just bad luck that she ran into a pack of goblins needlessly while looking at the person that had the crap scores.

In any case, that was the last game I joined that did rolling for stats and that was back last century. So it does happen and in at least some cases people are not happy with the results even when they roll high. Whether other people recognize it or not.

I think you need to use some kind of floor when you roll. In my experience a character having spectacular rolls is not a problem as long as all players have at least workable rolls. So either put in some rules where you throw it out if it is not at least XXX or you have some minimums on 1 or 2 stats of the characters choice (choose before you roll) or have some way to add points if the total is below a threshold.

If you think about it characters already get unbalanced due to the way magic drops - a legendary sword is going to make the fighter OP, a Staff of Power will make the Wizard OP, girdle of Giant Strength are going to take that 8 strength Rogue with a 27 point buy to a 21 strength Rogue which is the equivalent of 46 point buy. So Standard array or point buy does not really fix wide variations in character power, some directly related to ability scores (like the Rogue I mentioned), but as long as some players are good enough to contribute it is ok.

I have some recent experience in this - I just finished a 1-13 campaign where my rolled character (Rogue with cleric dip) was awful and the DM just let me take standard array instead. We had a Warlock that started with a 20 Charisma and picked up a tome that made it 22 at some point. Our Wizard had more hit points than I did. Our Paladin started with an 18 strength. I still had a ton of fun in that campaign, it was arguably the most fun campaign I have played in 5E and it certainly was the longest that I finished (went from January 21 to October 22). I was outshined in combat hands down, but I picked up feats and creative play to mitigate that. I did not spend any ASIs on dex, I picked up magic initiate to use booming blade and Martial Adept to be able to use quick toss and either throw a cleric spell ir use channel divinint.

I also focused a lot on my out of combat abilities, I put a +1 on the 15 (dex) and a +2 on the 12 (Charisma). This gave me 2 14s and a 13 which I put in Wisdom, Charisma and Intelligence to be at least ok at all the skills, I put one of my expertises on Athletics to counter the 8 strength. I took half elf, got the Archeologist background with cartographers tools to get the ability to chart courses over the tundra with ease, understand who built every dungeon we entered and appraise much of our treasure. I took scout subclass, by the end I had proficiency in 10 skills, with expertise in 6 of them and that included expertise in deception to outshine our 22 Charisma Warlock, expertise in Stealth and Athletics and expertise in Nature and Survival adding in guidance frequently from my cleric dip and I was a skill machine. At the end I think I had +7 Athletics, +9 Investigation, +6 Perception, +10 Deception, +6 Persuasion, +9 Nature, +10 Survival, +11 Stealth, +5 History, +6 Animal Handling and a +1/+2 or +3 in the remaining skills. With reliable talent and guidance that is an automatic pass on medium for all of those and close to an automatic pass on hard for most.

So in combat I was a bit player, and made sure to play my part, but out of combat I was a master.

 

[billd91]

Basically proves my point then doesn't it?

The reason to die roll is to get higher than point buy or standard array. So, @Sacrosanct I believe that this is the proof you requested? The odds of averaging lower than either point buy or standard array are fairly small - as in about 1 in 3 (ish). The odds of the group being below are pretty close to zero.

Proves? Not the assertion that a preponderance of evidence is that groups are average higher than the baseline. And that's because the same math that tells us that the odds of the entire group (of 5) being below the mean is low also tells us that the entire group being above the mean is also low (5-ish%).

What this is mostly telling us is that the point buy and array mean is rounding-error close to the mean for 4d6k3 but a hint below and that does put the die rolling average a little higher overall. The designers could probably make either non-rolled method a little more attractive by increasing the mean to 13 rather than 12 or goosing it a little upward to get a mean of 12.5.

None of this, of course, affects many reasons people choose for rolling including:
1) having stat values be independently generated (no reducing one to get a better value for another)
2) discovering their PC's assets spontaneously
3) the fun of cheering a good result around the table, jeering a poor one

Which has been my point all the way along. The primary effect of die roll (even if it isn't the stated reason) is to get a party that has higher than baseline stats. And, while @DND_Reborn's numbers seem to indicate that about a third of die rolled characters should be below the 72 points, I'd bet dollars to donuts that in play that's not true.

Ah, here we're back to insinuations about people's integrity - both in hiding their "true" intentions and in actually cheating.

 

[Oofta]

I think you need to use some kind of floor when you roll. In my experience a character having spectacular rolls is not a problem as long as all players have at least workable rolls. So either put in some rules where you throw it out if it is not at least XXX or you have some minimums on 1 or 2 stats of the characters choice (choose before you roll) or have some way to add points if the total is below a threshold.

If you think about it characters already get unbalanced due to the way magic drops - a legendary sword is going to make the fighter OP, a Staff of Power will make the Wizard OP, girdle of Giant Strength are going to take that 8 strength Rogue with a 27 point buy to a 21 strength Rogue which is the equivalent of 46 point buy. So Standard array or point buy does not really fix wide variations in character power, some directly related to ability scores (like the Rogue I mentioned), but as long as some players are good enough to contribute it is ok.

I have some recent experience in this - I just finished a 1-13 campaign where my rolled character (Rogue with cleric dip) was awful and the DM just let me take standard array instead. We had a Warlock that started with a 20 Charisma and picked up a tome that made it 22 at some point. Our Wizard had more hit points than I did. Our Paladin started with an 18 strength. I still had a ton of fun in that campaign, it was arguably the most fun campaign I have played in 5E and it certainly was the longest that I finished (went from January 21 to October 22). I was outshined in combat hands down, but I picked up feats and creative play to mitigate that. I did not spend any ASIs on dex, I picked up magic initiate to use booming blade and Martial Adept to be able to use quick toss and either throw a cleric spell ir use channel divinint.

I also focused a lot on my out of combat abilities, I put a +1 on the 15 (dex) and a +2 on the 12 (Charisma). This gave me 2 14s and a 13 which I put in Wisdom, Charisma and Intelligence to be at least ok at all the skills, I put one of my expertises on Athletics to counter the 8 strength. I took half elf, got the Archeologist background with cartographers tools to get the ability to chart courses over the tundra with ease, understand who built every dungeon we entered and appraise much of our treasure. I took scout subclass, by the end I had proficiency in 10 skills, with expertise in 6 of them and that included expertise in deception to outshine our 22 Charisma Warlock, expertise in Stealth and Athletics and expertise in Nature and Survival adding in guidance frequently from my cleric dip and I was a skill machine. At the end I think I had +7 Athletics, +9 Investigation, +6 Perception, +10 Deception, +6 Persuasion, +9 Nature, +10 Survival, +11 Stealth, +5 History, +6 Animal Handling and a +1/+2 or +3 in the remaining skills. With reliable talent and guidance that is an automatic pass on medium for all of those and close to an automatic pass on hard for most.

So in combat I was a bit player, and made sure to play my part, but out of combat I was a master.

First and foremost, I'm glad you had fun with the game. That's the most important thing.

Second, I think your experience is fairly typical with groups that roll - there's always a fallback. In your case it's use point buy. If I go into my way back machine, we adjusted ability scores or just rolled up a handful of PCs and chose the best one.

Third, I don't see why rolling really mattered that much to your story. You decided to play a PC that was primarily useful outside of combat, you can do that with any generation method. We always use point buy, different PCs have more or less combat focus depending on the campaign, DM and what makes sense for the character I thought up.

Fourth, just an observation. I don't know how most people grant treasure but if you use the charts in the DMG the odds of getting a rare item before CR 11 horde are small. You can't get a very rare or legendary until CR 11 horde and even then the odds are against it. The odds of a legendary increase slightly at CR 17 horde . If you truly randomize the odds of any specific item being useful to someone in the party is even smaller. Personally I may use the random item table as inspiration but I think long and hard before I hand anything out. I have yet to give anyone a legendary item to my current group and they just hit level 17. But I'm probably just being a chintzy DM, I'd rather have PC abilities make more of a difference then their toys.

There is no right way or wrong way, I just have a sincere dislike of rolling. Even if, or perhaps especially if, I can use point buy as a fallback. In my opinion, all rolling does is guarantee that some people will have numerically better PCs than some other person in the same group. I don't see the point.

 

[Sacrosanct]

None of this, of course, affects many reasons people choose for rolling including:
1) having stat values be independently generated (no reducing one to get a better value for another)
2) discovering their PC's assets spontaneously
3) the fun of cheering a good result around the table, jeering a poor one

While I was a bit more...antagonistic and knee-jerky 8 years ago when I made this post, I think this part is still true and is really the point:

Really, this entire discussion is not about punishment. No one is getting punished. It's 100% about "if you take a risk, you may end up better than a guarantee. Or worse."

 

[Maxperson]

Not true. First off with a 12 Con he will have 52, not 62, so the base is about 60% more.

Second, when you consider those options and tactics - That 10th level Wizard with an 8 con has 5th-level false life which is about 58 total vs 78 for the same wizard with a 12. So it is about 30% more hit points when you consider "options and tactics", not twice as much, and it is less than that 30% when you consider that if you used point buy, that other wizard will have a better AC, better saves or both.

But a wizard with 12 con and false life is even better. Another thing you might not be considering is that yes a 10th level monster that can chew through 60 hit points is likely to be able to chew through 70 or 80, but not always or even often in the same number of rounds. 1 extra round without needing to expend resources from either yourself or another party member can make a huge difference in the fight.

 

[Sacrosanct]

But a wizard with 12 con and false life is even better. Another thing you might not be considering is that yes a 10th level monster that can chew through 60 hit points is likely to be able to chew through 70 or 80, but not always or even often in the same number of rounds. 1 extra round without needing to expend resources from either yourself or another party member can make a huge difference in the fight.

In a game where many combats are 3-5 rounds or less long, for sure.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes and defenses other than hit points are generally better. I had a bladesinger with a 10 constitution who was in melee every single opponent she faced and she went 4 entire levels without getting hit at all because she had a high dexterity, high intelligence, bracers of defense, staff of defense and good defensive spells.

In most combats enemies were swinging at her with disadvantage and it was not uncommon for them to need a double 20 to beat her AC with shield spell and if they did beat it and she had not already cast shield she would use silvery barbs. She went down once at like 3rd level when she was surprised and attacked like 6 times. She did not get hit with an attack at all again until 7th level and she was our primary melee character. Other characters went down occasionally, but not her and she had the fewest hps in the party and took by far the most attacks.

She did take damage from AOEs, but most of the time it could be mitigated with Absorb Elements. She was pretty badass, but she was not optimized. Due this with a Shadar-Kai so you have resistance to necrotic and can give yourself resistance to all damage with a bonus action and you will be even better.

If she had a higher constitution she would have had to play with a lower dexterity, wisdom or intelligence, all of which are much more important (wisdom for the saves).

I've noticed that you are really taken with bladesingers. I played one once and rolled an 18 for dex and 16 for int, which was 20 and 17 once I added in my elven bonuses. Between mage armor and shield, I was virtually untouchable and it got worse when we found a cloak of displacement that I talked the rest of the party into letting me wear.

The thing is that while bladesinger = wizard, wizard =/= bladesinger. The vast majority of wizards out there are not bladesingers and don't have those phenomenal additions to AC. Hit points or key for their survival and responding to discussions about that with bladesingers X, Y and Z isn't really helpful, because the wizard category is so much more than just that one subclass.

 

[Maxperson]

If you are ranged character and never enter closer than 100ft of your target and always ducking behind total cover after your shot(s), then it does not make a difference if you have 8 or 16 con in that case.

Do your ranged characters never go into buildings, dungeons, caves, forests, winding valleys, only have day encounters, etc.? Unless you see the enemy coming from a loooong way away in fairly flat teraine, it's pretty hard to stay 100 feet from your target and actually contribute to the fight. Most of the time you will be closer than that.

 

[Lanefan]

But, that's my point. There is no trade off if die rolled nearly always results in higher stats. How is that a trade off?

You're trading certainty+lower for uncertainty+(probably) higher. Even more so if you don't allow rearranging of rolls.

 

[Lanefan]

I think you need to use some kind of floor when you roll. In my experience a character having spectacular rolls is not a problem as long as all players have at least workable rolls. So either put in some rules where you throw it out if it is not at least XXX or you have some minimums on 1 or 2 stats of the characters choice (choose before you roll) or have some way to add points if the total is below a threshold.

3e even baked this right in to the PH: if your rolled stats didn't give you a cumulative bonus of at least +0, start again.

If you think about it characters already get unbalanced due to the way magic drops - a legendary sword is going to make the fighter OP, a Staff of Power will make the Wizard OP, girdle of Giant Strength are going to take that 8 strength Rogue with a 27 point buy to a 21 strength Rogue which is the equivalent of 46 point buy. So Standard array or point buy does not really fix wide variations in character power, some directly related to ability scores (like the Rogue I mentioned), but as long as some players are good enough to contribute it is ok.

Indeed - IME after the first few adventures wealth imbalance becomes far more of an issue than stat imbalance; if for no other reason than being rich (be it in items, money, or whatever) often provides the means to get richer, while poorer characters - unless very lucky - can't catch up.

And wealth imbalance simply isn't something a DM can fix without dictating to the players how their PCs are to divide their treasure, and in most cases that ain't gonna go over very well.