D&D 5E (2014) Is Point Buy Balanced?

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

We already have that in intimidation.

Then great news!

False.

1) And this is the big one. Lots of time it doesn't cause you harm. Someone not liking you and/or what you just did =/= harm.
2) Deception can fail and then what?
3) Persuasion can fail and then what?
4) There will be times that persuasion is an auto fail for reasons in the fiction, but intimidation can work.
5) There will be times, albeit very rarely, when deception will auto fail for reasons in the fiction, but intimidation can work.

2 and 3 is the same for Intimidation (especially if you happen to have the same modifier and DCs).
And what reasons in the fiction are there for there to persuasion to fail but intimidation to work? How do you communicate this in game so that the players understand this and can take this into account?

 

[AlViking]

2 and 3 is the same for Intimidation (especially if you happen to have the same modifier and DCs).
And what reasons in the fiction are there for there to persuasion to fail but intimidation to work? How do you communicate this in game so that the players understand this and can take this into account?

Typically I try to broadcast it to the players through RP. For example a street thug may not respond to persuasion but will to intimidation. So they may respond with "Pretty words don't mean a thing" or I'll just portray them as cowardly but self-centered. As I said above insight checks or even something like a history check come into play as well. If you know the history of the region you may know that soft diplomacy is viewed as a weakness, at least as part of first contact.

Most of the times I don't wait for the player to ask for an insight or history check, I'll just tell them to make one if I think it makes sense for the scenario.

 

[CleverNickName]

Your graph seems a bit off because 4d6dl is skewed to higher numbers.

We are graphing very different things, in very different ways.

Your graph is a probability curve, and shows the chances of rolling one particular number on 4d6 (drop lowest). Your graph shows that the chances of rolling a 15 are about 10%, for example.

My graph is a histogram--a summary of results. I built a model in Excel that generates six ability scores using the 4d6 method, adds up the ability score modifiers for all six, and then reports the result. Then I ran that model tens of thousands of times, and graphed the number of times that each result showed up. For example, my graph shows that when it ran 160,840 iterations, about 20,000 of them were +5...about one out of every eight.

One thing I find interesting is that the odds of getting an 18 are about the same as getting a 5 or lower. The odds of a 17 or higher are about the same as a 17 or lower.

I'm not sure I follow. Your graph shows the probability of getting a 17 or 18 to be about 6% (~4% for a 17, and ~2% for an 18). That means the probability of getting a 17 or lower is about 98%.

It's not unusual to have a very wide disparity of results with rolling. If you're house ruling so you don't get results like this, then how random is it really?

It's mostly a matter of taste, if I had to guess. Not everyone enjoys the same amount of randomness in the game, after all, so they make house-rules to suit their preferences. And that's less a "math" thing and more of an "opinion" thing.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

note: I was using the built in system randomizer for rolls which isn't really all that random. So I spent a bit of time yesterday getting a list of 1000 numbers from 1-6 from a true random number website and then I just start at a random starting point in that array. So the distribution of die rolls should be good.

You can test your random numbers for bias by generating 10,000 of them, then the average should be 3.5.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

It's not unusual to have a very wide disparity of results with rolling. If you're house ruling so you don't get results like this, then how random is it really?

It's random enough to make people complain about it.

 

[AlViking]

It's random enough to make people complain about it.

If you're modifying the roll for stats enough to ensure everyone gets "good" numbers then I would rather just use 3e point buy and the heroic array. If you aren't you end up with a wide disparity of effectiveness on a regular basis and I'd rather use the standard array.

 

[Maxperson]

2 and 3 is the same for Intimidation (especially if you happen to have the same modifier and DCs).
And what reasons in the fiction are there for there to persuasion to fail but intimidation to work? How do you communicate this in game so that the players understand this and can take this into account?

2 and 3 are different skills, though. If they fail, intimidation can still work.

(In the local lord's manor with the Tarrasque coming)
PC: (knowing the Tarrasque is mythical to the point that almost all believe it not real) "My lord. An army of demons similar to the ones we defeated in Garoka is coming this way. You must evacuate the entire town, because we cannot face them before morning."

DM: "Roll deception."

Player: "2 on the die for a total of 10."

Lord Skeptic: "How dare you lie to me! My steward is practiced in the arts and he would know of such an invasion. And I can sense the falsehood on your lips."

PC: "You are right. I lied because I feared the truth would be even less believable..

Lord Skeptic: (interrupting) "And what is this truth?"

PC: "...the Tarrasque is real and it is coming this way. Nothing can stand in its path. My companions and I might be able to stop it, but as I said, not before morning. We have to have rest or we will surely die in the attempt. Please! Please evacuate before it's too late."

DM: "Give me a persuasion check at disadvantage because of the lie you were caught in."

Player: "Dang it all! Natural 1 for a total of 9."

Lord Skeptic: "You expect me to believe in fairy tales now!? Enough of your lies. Get out of my sight before I have you arrested."

PC: (growing angry): "You were right to name us as the ones who freed the country of Garoka from the hordes invading from the Abyss. We are also the ones who defeated the great dragon of the north, leaving its carcass to rot in an empty field. And we stopped the god Snee Kee from turning the city of Suhkurs into a bastion for thieves and assassins. If you don't evacuate this city now, by the gods we will track down you and your family, executing one for every one of your people who dies here. Evacuate, now!"

DM: "Roll intimidation."

Player: "Finally! 27!"

DM: "Lord Skeptic turns sheet white at your threat. He knows you are capable of making good on it. After a few moments to process he responds to you."

Lord Skeptic: "F-f-fine! But know that I will never forget this. You may be powerful, but I am still lord of this place and your better."

(sometime later with half the town destroyed and the carcass of the Tarrasque at the feet of the PCs)

DM: "You see Lord Skeptic walking towards you nervously."

Lord Skeptic: "I... (he glances towards the Tarrasque) I never imagined that it could be real. You saved countless lives here. (Lord Skeptic fidgets a bit) I will not.....................seek any retribution for your threats. You had no other choice. I can see that now. In fact...(Lord Skeptic turns to his scribe)... Chibbers, take note that these heroes are welcome in my town free of any duty. I will pay the inns and stores for what they wish to buy, within reason."

As you can see, the three skills are very different in what they are trying to accomplish and when you might want to use them. Failing at one might impact another, but wouldn't preclude another from working. They aren't the same. Nor will intimidation always result in bad stuff happening to the group, even if the person being intimidated is rightly angry and/or afraid of the PC(s).