D&D 5E Point buy vs roll

[aramis erak]

I still use the Redrick Roller that @aramis erak built.
The randomized array helps me create unique characters.

Redrick Roller

I used it myself last weekend. Dex 15 Wis 15,,,, MONK TIME!

 

[Maxperson]

Better primary and secondary scores, better skills, saves, likely more HP, more options, all positives no negatives along with far more options for MAD classes and multclassing.

Seems significant to me.

Not to me. You just don't need those things much. The math of 5e makes bonuses fairly insignificant.

 

[aramis erak]

Other - draw cards from a deck with no replacement.

Used in TSR's Saga system (DL5A and MSHAG, not star wars). Due to suiting, this allows also some other elements to be determined. DL5A uses a numeric value for magnitude, and a letter, which determines proficiency range, and the suit of the card determines the letter. Want to be able to use all melee weapons? Use the sword suit on the. All ranged?

Always point buy. (My campaign uses a modified version.)

I really see no point in rolling, especially in modern style where you just rearrange the scores to go where you want. You're just randomising character power. You might just as well randomise the starting level, if you want some characters to be randomly better than others.

Some games have, indeed, randomized starting level... DL5A essentially does so, even tho' it's classless. (Experience level translates directly to hand size, and so it's bleeping important in play. One of your cards in CGen is used for experience level. My players tended to dumpstat it... to their later chagrin.

At least in the old school roll in order method you're randomising what kind of character you get, and not only power. Though I think a better way to do that would be to randomise your class, race and background.

ISTR that Jorune has one make rolls for each those, plus stats. It was definitely into the "NOPE!" territory.
IIRC, WFRP 1E only lets you pick class and race... but not the career within that class.

And, to be honest, most of the time, players who didn't roll what they wanted suicided the character to try again. Either before play, or in the first combat.

 

[Parmandur]

I just find it refreshing how many people are so in to character and the game that they wouldn't care if another party member started with socks of +4 Dex, undershirt of +4 Str, underpants of +4 Con, headband of +4 Wis, wrist bands of +4 Int, and a ring of +4 Chr with the limitation they don't go over 18 without another ASI (or some other random set of plusses with total bonuses ranging from +12 to +24, no attunement needed) at 1st level while they themselves had rolled the same base stats and had no special items. It makes me feel selfish and wonder how I lost what pre-teen and young teenage me played with in games all the time.

I mean, never seen anything that extreme, although our roommate once let my future brother in law have a pet monkey for his Gnome Gninja (2E experiment in the late Aughts), which ended up being the most effective party member (the monkey, not the Gnome). Hilarity ensued.

 

[Parmandur]

Not to me. You just don't need those things much. The math of 5e makes bonuses fairly insignificant.

Proficiency Bonus is usually more important, and that's not random. Though I'm the weirdo who thinks the Proficiency die was a good idea, and enjoyed playing a Wild Mage for an extended time, so maybe I'm just lucky to have D&D as an outlet instead of Craps?

 

[Irlo]

Not to me. You just don't need those things much. The math of 5e makes bonuses fairly insignificant.

That's sort of the what I lean toward, but my players historically have not had the same opinions, at all. I have to wonder how your players think about this. You described earlier what seemed like a fun and exciting character generation process, with players cheering each other on with their dice rolls. If there aren't significant affects from the ability modifiers, what's everyone getting excited about? That's a real question. I'm not challenging your experience.

 

[Maxperson]

That's sort of the what I lean toward, but my players historically have not had the same opinions, at all. I have to wonder how your players think about this. You described earlier what seemed like a fun and exciting character generation process, with players cheering each other on with their dice rolls. If there aren't significant affects from the ability modifiers, what's everyone getting excited about? That's a real question. I'm not challenging your experience.

Past history.

I'm convinced that decades of stat bonuses being a big deal has trained them to think a certain way, and it's really hard to get humans to break habits like that.

 

[Blue]

I mean, the exact number will make a difference, but on average a rolled character will be on par with a point buy one, that's the aggregate math which has stood up over time in practice.

Except aggregate math has nothing to do with the case we are talking about - differences in power within a small group, say 4-6. Please, actually listen to what the argument is.

 

[Blue]

Math says that, yes, but math is deceiving. In 5e you only really need +2 in your prime stat to do well and everything after that is just a bit of gravy. It doesn't matter to me in the slightest if I start at 14 and you at 18, because your +4 won't impact my ability to do well, contribute meaningfully, and have lots of fun.

Can you claim that many if not the majority of players would be annoyed if the other players all received a rare weapon or implement for a +2 over them and they never did? Because that's the same as a 14 to 18.

 

[Parmandur]

Except aggregate math has nothing to do with the case we are talking about - differences in power within a small group, say 4-6. Please, actually listen to what the argument is.

I understand the argument, but it is an abstract matter of theory for me. It has never come up on the ground for direct observation, though I could suppose it could and indeed must, again in theory, with the right circumstances.