D&D 5E Bladesinger - a criticism of its design

[Ovinomancer]

Had a computer do it, yes: then averaged the second-highest roll from each, on down to the lowest. The result, a ranked average, was surprisingly close to the standard array, just a tad higher on a score or two.

Ah, that's much clearer. I think the culprit the first time around was an unclear pronoun antecedent in 'sort them descending'.

 

[clearstream]

Much easier to generate a LOT of sets, pull the highest in each, and then average. If I get the time, I might recreate.

I made a basic Monte Carlo to start looking at this in Excel. Generate 1000 arrays at a time and count arrays containing at least one 15+ and at least one 16+.

Running that several dozen times to generate at least 10,000 arrays. The fewest arrays out of each 1000 satisfying the criteria were 313 and the most were 414. To the extent that method is reasonable, we can say that about a third of characters generated using the standard method will meet the criteria.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I made a basic Monte Carlo to start looking at this in Excel. Generate 1000 arrays at a time and count arrays containing at least one 15+ and at least one 16+.

Running that several dozen times to generate at least 10,000 arrays. The fewest arrays out of each 1000 satisfying the criteria were 313 and the most were 414. To the extent that method is reasonable, we can say that about a third of characters generated using the standard method will meet the criteria.

Are we agreeing that's a significant shift from 'average'?

 

[clearstream]

Are we agreeing that's a significant shift from 'average'?

The average array on 4d6 drop lowest as I understand it is 16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 9. I did not Monte Carlo that.

I checked the frequency of the above average array for BS, which is 16, 15, 13, 12, 10, 9 or better. About a third of characters.

I'll take a look at the "average" array and revert.

 

[clearstream]

Are we agreeing that's a significant shift from 'average'?

For arrays containing at least one 14+ and at least one 16+, over about 20,000 arrays I observed 441 to 525 per thousand.

Feels like a character is likely to fall within a standard deviation of the proposed "average", tending toward slightly lower.

 

[dco]

Let me guess, high AC, higher with Spells, better concentration than sorcerers, melee damage thanks to new cantrips competitive with fighters, movement as barbarians, spells as wizards... So best AC, best concentration, best movement without extra actions...
The typical power creep that comes with new books, the reason why I don't waste my money on them.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The average array on 4d6 drop lowest as I understand it is 16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 9. I did not Monte Carlo that.

I checked the frequency of the above average array for BS, which is 16, 15, 13, 12, 10, 9 or better. About a third of characters.

I'll take a look at the "average" array and revert.

Sorry, but can you confirm that you get at least 16, 15, 13, 12, 10, 9 about 1/3 of the time on 4d6k3?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Let me guess, high AC, higher with Spells, better concentration than sorcerers, melee damage thanks to new cantrips competitive with fighters, movement as barbarians, spells as wizards... So best AC, best concentration, best movement without extra actions...
The typical power creep that comes with new books, the reason why I don't waste my money on them.

Well, the build vonklaude is pushing is high rolled stats, takes two characters first turn in combat to turn on along with 2 2nd level spells. Other than that, it's not so bad.

 

[clearstream]

Sorry, but can you confirm that you get at least 16, 15, 13, 12, 10, 9 about 1/3 of the time on 4d6k3?

Yes, that's right.

From the Monte Carlo in Excel about a third of characters generated by the standard method have that array or better.

 

[clearstream]

Let me guess, high AC, higher with Spells, better concentration than sorcerers, melee damage thanks to new cantrips competitive with fighters, movement as barbarians, spells as wizards... So best AC, best concentration, best movement without extra actions...
The typical power creep that comes with new books, the reason why I don't waste my money on them.

Well, the BS with stats that about a third of characters will have, using proactive buffs instead of reactive heals (why don't players do this more often? hard to say), does as you say.

From the perspective of adding balanced crunch to your core campaign, SCAG is disappointing. That's true.