D&D 5E Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats

[Yardiff]

My opinion on stats.

Average is any combination of 10s and 11s. Overall bonus +0. Of course few are strictly average.
Normal is 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 in any arrangement. Overall bonus +0. A lot Normal out there in the campaign.
So for me 14-15 is only a little above normal, noticeably above average but not much above normal. Muscled but not brawny.
Same with the other way, 6-7 is noticeably below average but not much below normal. Week but not crippled.

 

[Lanefan]

Once I need them the ability scores could be anywhere from 14 (not bad for a commoner) to 20 (ex adventurer, or important NPC that is "undercover"). Your scale of course may vary ... but the point is that there is no reason for the ability score to exist until you need it.

Which still doesn't answer the question. Why do we care and what does this have to do with point buy vs rolling for ability scores?

The connection is that NPC or commoner scores, when needed, have to be generated somehow. Neither array nor point-buy gives a workable solution; rolling sort-of does but at the same time sort-of doesn't, and the 5e RAW seem to be somewhere between vague and useless on the whole topic. Hence, we talk...or type...and try to find a workable solution.

About the only thing we've all somewhat agreed on - I think - is that for modelling an overall population the 3d6 bell curve is too extreme-heavy. From there, I'm not sure where we've got to.

The point-buy vs. rolling debate is solely around generating stats for adventurers, be they PC or NPC; and I think we already know where each of us stands on that one. (for those that don't, there's about 990 posts before this one that'll sort you out)

Lanefan

 

[Tony Vargas]

The connection is that NPC or commoner scores, when needed, have to be generated somehow. Neither array nor point-buy gives a workable solution; rolling sort-of does but at the same time sort-of doesn't, and the 5e RAW seem to be somewhere between vague and useless on the whole topic.

Well, the MM commoner has scores: they're straight 10s. That /is/ an array, just one where arranging stats is meaningless and it corresponds, I believe, to, what, 12 point buy? So you could just shuffle the points a bit, say 1:1 up to 13 down to 8 (or less if you like). Other NPCs have better stats, that could, likewise, correspond to arrays that could be re-arranged or point-totals that could be reverse engineered and spent differently.

The PC generation systems may not apply, but a variation on the easily could. 4d6 would be crazy for commoners, but 3d6 might be better and I believe you've tossed out some other variations of random generation that'd give a different, more reasonable curve, yes?

The point-buy vs. rolling debate is solely around generating stats for adventurers, be they PC or NPC...

Nod. But one of the positives of random generation is that it nods to realism/verisimilitude/immersion on the basis that 3d6 is the distribution of the larger population...

 

[Oofta]

Well, the MM commoner has scores: they're straight 10s. That /is/ an array, just one where arranging stats is meaningless and it corresponds, I believe, to, what, 12 point buy? So you could just shuffle the points a bit, say 1:1 up to 13 down to 8 (or less if you like). Other NPCs have better stats, that could, likewise, correspond to arrays that could be re-arranged or point-totals that could be reverse engineered and spent differently.

The PC generation systems may not apply, but a variation on the easily could. 4d6 would be crazy for commoners, but 3d6 might be better and I believe you've tossed out some other variations of random generation that'd give a different, more reasonable curve, yes?

Nod. But one of the positives of random generation is that it nods to realism/verisimilitude/immersion on the basis that 3d6 is the distribution of the larger population...

Except ... when I have an NPC that I've bothered creating ability score, it is not a random member of the populace. It's Bob the Baker, a unique individual that doesn't need to have any relationship (ability score-wise) to any other NPC.

Each NPC that has ability scores in my campaign is an island unto themselves. I don't worry over-much about number of points spent, whether his ability scores are realistic (other than adhering to general guidelines). NPCs shouldn't out-shine PCs as a general rule, but if I want a Sherlock Holmes NPC with a 20 in intelligence and wisdom with above average in several other ability scores then that's what he has. If the king is an aging dim-witted buffoon and anger issues with lower than average ability scores overall, then so be it.

NPCs have whatever ability scores make sense for the role they play in the world. "Realism" has nothing to do with it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

NPCs have whatever ability scores make sense for the role they play in the world. "Realism" has nothing to do with it.

That's a sort of 'realism' in itself.

 

[Hussar]

That's a sort of 'realism' in itself.

That's splitting hairs pretty finely.

And, again, I'd point out that the 5e DMG pretty much straight up says that NPC's don't have stats. I think my point got missed a bit in the shuffle Sure, you're supposed to give the NPC plain English descriptors - Strong/Weak, Smart/Stupid, whatever. But, and this is an important but, you don't give them six descriptors for all 6 stats. You give them one, maybe two and that's it.

IOW, the rules are pretty silent on what the general population actually looks like. Which is very much in keeping with how D&D has always been. D&D has always relied on a more rules light/absent approach to world building. The mechanics don't really concern themselves with how the world looks. Sure, we get things like Climate/Terrain in AD&D, but, again, that was just descriptors. Nothing mechanical. Yup, Monster X is usually found in Terrain Y, but, that's it. 3e didn't even bother with that, nor does 5e.

Look at it like this. Orcs are described as being very strong. Ok, fair enough. Now, what does that mean? In mechanical terms, well, we tend to give orcs a pretty high strength - the MM lists them as 16. But, when you think about it, 16 is HUGE. The average orc is as strong as some of the strongest humans? What does a big orc look like? If we're presuming a 3d6 bell curve, that means that there are orcs out there with a 22 strength. That doesn't make much sense though, since that means a really strong orc is stronger than a Hill Giant (funnily enough, there is no 22 Str giant ). That's a bit much. I'm having a bit of trouble buying that we have orcs that are significantly stronger (and a significant percentage as well) than an ogre.

Every time you try to apply D&D mechanics to world building, you dive into a deep dark rabbit hole of inconsistencies and ridiculousness.

 

[Yardiff]

No it pretty much says you don't have to roll stats not that they don't have stats.

"You don't need to roll ability scores for the NPC,"

 

[Tony Vargas]

That's splitting hairs pretty finely.

Yep. 'Realism.' Split some hairs, bundle others...

And, again, I'd point out that the 5e DMG pretty much straight up says that NPC's don't have stats.

That's fairly hypothetical-tree-arbitrarily-falls-in-an-imaginary forest...

IOW, the rules are pretty silent on what the general population actually looks like.

Straight '10's are apparently pretty common.

Which is very much in keeping with how D&D has always been. D&D has always relied on a more rules light/absent approach to world building. The mechanics don't really concern themselves with how the world looks.

But that doesn't keep crazy gamers from extrapolating from the mechanics to what the world 'must' look like. "Spiked Chain is best weapon? Must be what everyone uses... " "Elves get +2 DEX and proficiency in rapier & longsword, they must always use the rapier, unless I 'fix' it by giving them finesseable longswords...." "Wall of Iron is permanent? Iron must not be mined in this world, it's all conjured by a wizard's guild. Fabricate? They make all the Full Plate Armor, too!"

Look at it like this. Orcs are described as being very strong. Ok, fair enough. Now, what does that mean? In mechanical terms, well, we tend to give orcs a pretty high strength - the MM lists them as 16. But, when you think about it, 16 is HUGE.

Yeah.

The average orc is as strong as some of the strongest humans? What does a big orc look like? If we're presuming a 3d6 bell curve, that means that there are orcs out there with a 22 strength.

One reason the bell curve isn't that great. Maybe orcs roll Strength on 3d3+10? Maybe the implied 3d6+2 but there's some very ahem, strong, un-natural selection for high STR in orc society?

Looking at it another way, if you had just plain orcs rather than the orc warriors (or whatever they are) in the MM, they could use the stats of NPCs with racial adjustments. So an orc commoner would have a mere 12 STR.

Every time you try to apply D&D mechanics to world building, you dive into a deep dark rabbit hole of inconsistencies and ridiculousness.

Part of the fun. ;P

 

[Hussar]

/snip

But that doesn't keep crazy gamers from extrapolating from the mechanics to what the world 'must' look like. "Spiked Chain is best weapon? Must be what everyone uses... " "Elves get +2 DEX and proficiency in rapier & longsword, they must always use the rapier, unless I 'fix' it by giving them finesseable longswords...." "Wall of Iron is permanent? Iron must not be mined in this world, it's all conjured by a wizard's guild. Fabricate? They make all the Full Plate Armor, too!"
/snip

Thus my comment about the deep, dark rabbit hole. Extrapolating from mechanics is a road that spirals down into completely unbelievable worlds.

No it pretty much says you don't have to roll stats not that they don't have stats.

"You don't need to roll ability scores for the NPC,"

And then proceeds for the next few pages to tell you how to create NPC's with no stats. It's not until you get towards the end of the section, when they're mostly talking about NPC's that are either major villains or alies, that actually giving them stats at all is mentioned.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Thus my comment about the deep, dark rabbit hole. Extrapolating from mechanics is a road that spirals down into completely unbelievable worlds.

D&D actually does crib a bit here and there (Vorpal Swords, growth & diminution potions, mirrors you can walk through) from Lewis Carol, so why not...

...say 'hi' to the rabbits...