D&D 5E Assumptions about character creation

[DEFCON 1]

There's a reason why we hear all this talk about the ubiquity about INT as a dump stat. Because everybody has realized that because they don't actually ROLEPLAY their characters as dumb posts (except on the rarest of occasions in order to throw their 8 modifier a bone)... having a low INT for their character is meaningless. They as players still all use their own natural intellect to make good tactical decisions, contribute usefully to plans the group tries to put together, help out on puzzles etc., when it truly counts and is important to the group. Almost no one sabotages their group by deliberately making poor suggestions all in the name of "playing their character" and its dump stat INT. As a result, the game mechanics do almost nothing to actually define the character, because the player doesn't truly buy in and roleplay it.

So all this crosstalk on the game mechanics needing to exist to define who your PC is... I think is a whole lot of nothing.

 

[Oofta]

There's a reason why we hear all this talk about the ubiquity about INT as a dump stat. Because everybody has realized that because they don't actually ROLEPLAY their characters as dumb posts (except on the rarest of occasions in order to throw their 8 modifier a bone)... having a low INT for their character is meaningless. They as players still all use their own natural intellect to make good tactical decisions, contribute usefully to plans the group tries to put together, help out on puzzles etc., when it truly counts and is important to the group. Almost no one sabotages their group by deliberately making poor suggestions all in the name of "playing their character" and its dump stat INT. As a result, the game mechanics do almost nothing to actually define the character, because the player doesn't truly buy in and roleplay it.

So all this crosstalk on the game mechanics needing to exist to define who your PC is... I think is a whole lot of nothing.

To a certain degree player ability will always be a factor. However, I do think how much PC abilities matter will vary from game to game. Some people never want to touch the dice when overcoming obstacles outside of combat, I try to do a balance and make sure that abilities and proficiencies make a difference on a regular basis. See Role of the Dice in the DMG.

 

[Maxperson]

All elves no longer all have a +2 in DEX due to racial modifiers. Many won't. But then again... many elves who even did have a +2 to DEX due to racial modifiers had statistically lower dexterities than other characters in a typical party, so the elf the players in the group was seeing was not always the most graceful creature around (despite people saying that elves should be graceful and agile which is why they felt the +2 DEX bonus had to be there in the book).

The bolded statements are not equivalent. All it takes to be graceful is to hit a 12. Once you are getting a bonus, you are graceful, which is all that the elven race is claimed to be. The elf can be graceful, yet not the most graceful in the group. Individual elves can fail to be graceful, though there will be fewer of them than in races without a +2 bonus. Nobody is saying that elves should all be the most graceful creatures around and that's why they should get the +2. We're saying that as a race, the average elven dex is graceful, which the +2 provides.

 

[cmad1977]

Yep, the imbalance in Crit Role PC stats is incredible (or, at least, in the second campaign, which is the only one I've watched). But, the players don't play to their PCs' stats, seemingly completely unconcerned about the massive disconnect between the statistical characteristics of their characters and their in-game behaviour. It works for them. YMMV

They play characters and not builds.

 

[Maxperson]

There's a reason why we hear all this talk about the ubiquity about INT as a dump stat. Because everybody has realized that because they don't actually ROLEPLAY their characters as dumb posts (except on the rarest of occasions in order to throw their 8 modifier a bone)... having a low INT for their character is meaningless. They as players still all use their own natural intellect to make good tactical decisions, contribute usefully to plans the group tries to put together, help out on puzzles etc., when it truly counts and is important to the group. Almost no one sabotages their group by deliberately making poor suggestions all in the name of "playing their character" and its dump stat INT. As a result, the game mechanics do almost nothing to actually define the character, because the player doesn't truly buy in and roleplay it.

So all this crosstalk on the game mechanics needing to exist to define who your PC is... I think is a whole lot of nothing.

I give out roleplaying XP bonuses at the end of the session. Someone who has a low int score and isn't roleplaying it consistently is going to see that bonus drop pretty substantially. I expect my players to roleplay to the best of their ability. They don't have to be actor level good, but they have to at least be trying to RP their stats. My players don't dump int unless it's for a character concept that they want to roleplay.

 

[Umbran]

As an interestng sidenote, the standard array is actually lower than what the 4d6 (drop lowest) method would give you on average (16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 9).

The average of 4d6 drop lowest is 12.24. The average on the standard array is 12.

Which means that the difference between them, on average, is within rounding error. So, maybe we should not position this as a major issue.

 

[jmartkdr2]

The average of 4d6 drop lowest is 12.24. The average on the standard array is 12.

Which means that the difference between them, on average, is within rounding error. So, maybe we should not position this as a major issue.

I think the biggest meaningful difference is the fact that 4d6 keep 3 has pretty good odds of giving you a 16 (about 50% chance of at least 1 16 or better IIRC)

- which means "starting at a +3 mod" is a reasonable expectation in a rolled game regardless of character race (if you're the sort of person who has an expectation), which would be an argument that any race/class combinaton is intended to be 'viable' (if you care about that sort of thing)

- and, which could even be raised to an 18 after racials. If you're the sort of person who notices stats, you will definitely notice that.

To me, at least, these aren't really pros or cons - but it could and does matter to some people.

 

[Oofta]

I think the biggest meaningful difference is the fact that 4d6 keep 3 has pretty good odds of giving you a 16 (about 50% chance of at least 1 16 or better IIRC)

- which means "starting at a +3 mod" is a reasonable expectation in a rolled game regardless of character race (if you're the sort of person who has an expectation), which would be an argument that any race/class combinaton is intended to be 'viable' (if you care about that sort of thing)

- and, which could even be raised to an 18 after racials. If you're the sort of person who notices stats, you will definitely notice that.

To me, at least, these aren't really pros or cons - but it could and does matter to some people.

If you want to look at the odds, this sight is one reference. I don't see a point in getting into detail, but I really hate rolling for stats and pretty much always have. I've been at tables where one person had multiple 18s, lowest score a 14 while another had a single high of 14, a single 10 and everything else below. Both people were dissatisfied with the result.

In any case it's just a difference of approach. I see no value in randomized values (other than to ensure that some PCs have a statistical advantage over others) and I start with a vision of my PC, I don't want a 1 time random roll to decide what ability scores my character has that I hope to play for a year or more. Ability scores can, and with random rolls on average will, make a pretty huge difference in effectiveness of most PCs at their chosen role.

Fortunately we have the option to choose whichever method you prefer.

 

[Helldritch]

We used to use the standard array but now all player roll 4d6 once (both of my groups have 6 players). Then all players take the results for their characters. This gives 6 stats that all players will share. No one is above or below the other. This method ensures that everyone is either happy or unhappy with the rolls. I added that I secretly roll 4d6 and let the players decide to randomly pick one of their roll to switch with mine. They can remove their highest roll from the pick so they feel that they can "remove" a bad stat. Sometimes, it is a win for them, sometimes it is a loss. I think my players have gambling problems...

 

[Azzy]

The average of 4d6 drop lowest is 12.24.

Yes, on any given roll of a single 4d6 roll. When rolled in batches of sixes (4d6 for each ability score), the results will tend to deviate from the mean of a single roll.