D&D 5E Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats

[Tony Vargas]

My question was why it's more realistic for an individual character to have a set of rolled scores than it is for the character to have the same scores derived from another method.

Because, 'realistically,' the /character/, the fictional/imaginary entity being created, does not have (much) control over it's own stats, in the context of the 'reality' of the DM's imagined fantasy setting in which he lives.
So the player being able to arrange those stats, or, even more so, able to 'buy' them in point-by-point detail, when the character cannot is unrealistic.

 

[Hussar]

Because, 'realistically,' the /character/, the fictional/imaginary entity being created, does not have (much) control over it's own stats, in the context of the 'reality' of the DM's imagined fantasy setting in which he lives.
So the player being able to arrange those stats, or, even more so, able to 'buy' them in point-by-point detail, when the character cannot is unrealistic.

But, even so, point buy results in PC's that are more realistic than random generation. For the same reason we don't have firemen with 3 Int's or police officers with 3 Strength's. Simply by virtue of the fact that you are an adventurer, the bottom end of the spectrum is very unlikely to be seen. Or at least far less likely than what die rolling gives you.

And, if you absolutely HAVE to play that character with some sort of physical or mental issue, then ask your DM nicely to not spend all your points during character generation. Easy peasy.

Of course, none of this actually relates to trying to extrapolate the game world from PC generation mechanics. Thus, PC generation mechanics aren't actually used to create anything other than very specific NPC's.

 

[Hriston]

Because, 'realistically,' the /character/, the fictional/imaginary entity being created, does not have (much) control over it's own stats, in the context of the 'reality' of the DM's imagined fantasy setting in which he lives.
So the player being able to arrange those stats, or, even more so, able to 'buy' them in point-by-point detail, when the character cannot is unrealistic.

I don't think that has anything to do with realism. It doesn't affect the way the character or the world are represented. It doesn't turn a realistic representation into an unrealistic one. No one is imagining that the character is doing the impossible and choosing its own scores when the player does so, just as no one imagines the character is actually rolling dice for its scores if that method is used. The standard array and all the other results of point-buy are every bit as realistic as scores that are rolled, so I don't think the realism of the character or the world are at stake here.

What's at stake is the experience of the real people at the table, which gets back to what I said up-thread about immersion. For some players, part of the game-play experience is a feeling of immersion that depends on making decisions from the character's point of view. Choosing scores is obviously not a decision the character can make, so I believe that some players would rather leave that decision to the dice. Realism has nothing to do with it.

 

[Maxperson]

Nobody on this thread has ever said the standard array or point buy should be used for the general populace.

What should the numbers be? Heck if I know, it's not relevant to the game. I can tell you that I think it's silly to assume a method that makes 1 in every 216 people is as mentally handicapped as possible is a viable method.

Intelligence goes down to 0, so a 3 isn't as mentally handicapped as possible. It's just as low as you can go without some sort of tragedy or birth defect to cause it to go even lower.

By making up stuff that was never stated or implied.

Exactly. I'm quite familiar with that tactic of yours.

In a previous edition that was published over a decade ago, which has nothing to do with 5E.

This discussion has been spanning all editions for many pages now.

 

[Maxperson]

Heh, so, the fact that 3e never, ever used randomly generated NPC's is irrelevant, but a single throw away line, THAT IS CONTRADICTED IN THE SAME SENTENCE, is? Remember, they SPECIFICALLY STATE THE ARRAY OF ELITE NPC'S AND STATE THAT NON-ELITE NPC'S HAVE LOWER STATS.

So, no, 3e NPC's are not generated by 3d6 in order, since that would result in significant numbers of them becoming Elites. And, ALL elite NPC's USE THE SAME STAT ARRAY.

Good grief @Maxperson, don't you get tired of cherry picking your points? Or do you see that one sentence that supports you and just mentally block out everything else.

Just to reiterate. Elite NPC's all have the same stat block, arranged to the most advantageous set. Non-Elite NPC's have lower stats because, well, if they had higher, then they would be elite and use the elite array. So, it's somewhat contradictory right in the same paragraph to say that all NPC's are 3d6 rolled. They aren't. They can't be since any 3d6 result that would exceed the Elite array would automatically have to shift that NPC to elite and use an identical array.

But, hey, keep on keeping on. @Maxperson has no problem ignoring the fact that 5e flat out stats that NPC's that aren't a threat don't need stats, why should he bother actually reading this either?

Selective reading seems to be your strong suit. No matter how you couch it, 3e says explicitly that NPCs are rolled via 3d6 and then gives the average. The arrays are only there for the lazy DM(which we all are at least some of the time). All the average and elite arrays are, are quick, lazy, guaranteed ways to get an average NPC and an elite NPC. Those arrays do not invalidate the explicit rule that NPCs roll 3d6 for stats.

Also, not needing stats isn't the same as not having them. Keep up the selective reading across the editions.

 

[Maxperson]

I think you missed the point of my question. I wasn't asking why rolling is more realistic than everyone taking the same array or everyone using point-buy. My question was why it's more realistic for an individual character to have a set of rolled scores than it is for the character to have the same scores derived from another method.

No other method gives you the same range of scores.

 

[Maxperson]

But, even so, point buy results in PC's that are more realistic than random generation. For the same reason we don't have firemen with 3 Int's or police officers with 3 Strength's. Simply by virtue of the fact that you are an adventurer, the bottom end of the spectrum is very unlikely to be seen. Or at least far less likely than what die rolling gives you.

Once again, the reason we don't have firemen with 3 int and police officers with 3 str is because the people doing the hiring don't hire them with those stats. Adventurers have no such overlords dictating what the minimums and maximums are. I also don't see you arguing that we don't have fireman and policeman cadets with higher than 15 int or str.

 

[Hriston]

No other method gives you the same range of scores.

No other method but pick a 3, an 18, or any number in between. But the other methods do give you a subset of the scores rolling gives you. If those numbers (8-15) are realistic when you roll them, how do they suddenly become unrealistic when you use a different method to get them?

 

[Maxperson]

No other method but pick a 3, an 18, or any number in between. But the other methods do give you a subset of the scores rolling gives you. If those numbers (8-15) are realistic when you roll them, how do they suddenly become unrealistic when you use a different method to get them?

Because you are picking those numbers, and not rolling them randomly. Lack of control makes it more realistic as well. We don't control what our starting adult stats are in the real world, and those starting numbers dictate how far we can go.

 

[Lanefan]

I think you missed the point of my question. I wasn't asking why rolling is more realistic than everyone taking the same array or everyone using point-buy. My question was why it's more realistic for an individual character to have a set of rolled scores than it is for the character to have the same scores derived from another method.

Let's say there are three PCs in a group that uses 4d6 drop lowest. The player of the first PC rolls 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8, which just so happens to be close to the most likely outcome of such a roll. The player of the second PC rolls 14, 14, 14, 12, 9, 9. And the third player rolls 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10 for his character's abilities.

Now let's say there's another group with three PCs, but this group likes to use a variety of methods to set its scores, but they never roll dice. One player uses the standard array for her character. Another player uses point-buy to build an array of 14, 14, 14, 12, 9, 9. The last player wants to play a commoner masquerading as a hero and uses the scores of the Commoner NPC for his character.

Why is the first group more realistic?

Because the fourth player in group one might roll 18-14-13-11-9-7, which cannot be done via any other RAW-recognized method.

4d6x1 doesn't guarantee rolling a stat line outside that which point-buy can give, but the chance is there...and you'll get at least one stat outside the 8-15 range (higher, lower, or both) about half the time, if I remember the numbers given upthread.

Lanefan