D&D 5E Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats

[Tony Vargas]

Happy 2 month anniversary, thread without a natural stopping point! Long may you foster discord!

Hail Eris!

No other method gives you the same range of scores.

Variations on any of the three methods can deliver whatever range of scores the DM desires. 3-18 may very well /not/ be desirable for a given campaign, so random can be adjusted to weight heavily in one direction (4d6k3), use entirely different dice (3d4+6), or set floors or ceilings requiring a re-roll. Similarly, a standard Array can consist of any 6 scores the DM desires. Similarly, point-buy can have any upper or lower limits set and any variations on cost to get there.

The variation random generation offers is not variation in the range of values one character can have in one score, or in the universe of all theoretically possible characters (which is irrelevant), but in the variation in the total value of the arrays assigned to each player at a given table - in other words, one player can have a flat-out much better or worse set of stats to arrange than the next.

...which cannot be done via any other RAW-recognized method.

RAW is a 3e-community bugaboo. The two systems offered in the 5e PH are just starting points.

I don't think that has anything to do with realism. It doesn't affect the way the character or the world are represented. ...What's at stake is ...a feeling of immersion that depends on making decisions from the character's point of view.

I don't really feel there's important distinctions to be drawn among 'realism,' 'simulationism,' 'associated mechanics,' 'internal consistency,' and/or 'immersion' ...and/or whatever...
They're all split from the same hair.

But, even so, point buy results in PC's that are more realistic than random generation. 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.

Thus all the methods in the 1e DMG, including the 4d6 5e went with, sure.

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.

Agreed. Yet, some sense of consistency, which also ties back to the desire for realism (and the various code-words for realism), can come from relating the distribution or generation of NPC stats to that of PCs. I suppose it makes no difference whether that's the obvious symmetry of using straight 3d6 (or 3 'average' dice - 3d6(a)? for NPCs, simply taking away the 4th die used for PCs before rolling it instead of after, or the symmetry of having PC, 'ellite,' and 'ordinary' Arrays, or different point values for PCs/'Important' NPCs/elites/commoners.

I think [MENTION=6857506]Harzel[/MENTION] has the right of it. As I understand it, the idea is that since a person cannot control his or her own gross physical and mental characteristics, die rolling better reflects the random chances of birth.

And, to be fair, I get the appeal. ... There's apparently no problems with choosing background, choosing where to place those die rolled stats (arrange to taste is apparently fine), choosing class and pretty much every other element of the character, none of which a person really has control over. But, apparently, while it's perfectly fine to declare that my character is part of the nobility, it's not acceptable to claim that I have a 14 Strength.

It's all a matter of degree. Random-and-arrange is a compromise between the realism of not getting to choose your talents (the 'association'/immersion split-ends of the realism hair) and the desirability of playing a character you want. It's an arbitrary compromise, and isn't rooted in degrees of realism (it's clearly /more/ associative to choose your stats - you can choose to study more or work out more, for instance - than to choose the circumstances of your birth). And, as Max & I have already volunteered, back in the day we did each, independently (and I doubt we were alone) randomly generate all sorts of beyond-the-character's-input background details like that, so, hey, at least we've been consistent, that way. It's not all self-contradiction and hypocrisy on the preference-for-random side.

The way the scores represent the character isn't affected by the method by which they were generated.

In one sense they can be, because what your scores represent about your character is relative. If you buy a 15 STR and choose a +2 STR race, you're going to either be the strongest PC in the party, or tied for that honor. If you /roll/ a 15 STR and choose the same race, though you have exact same 17 STR, you may or may not be 'the strongest' - everyone else might roll 12 or less in STR, or one or more others might roll 18s - your 'strongest' concept could end up the 'weakest' in a party of 18-20 STR characters.

It is true that rolling is more realistic than point buys or arrays.

While I still believe this is true, the arc of this long thread has convinced me that it's probably to a trivial degree.

It's only power gaming if you are doing it to power game AND you are guaranteed better stats than point buy or array, which you aren't.

I guess, here, you're using 'power gaming' to mean 'wanting to play a strictly superior character to the next guy.' I disapprove of that use of the term, preferring to think of a power-gamer like a power-user, someone with great familiarity with a system who can get more utility out of it, to the benefit of all involved. But, using the crass, desire-for-superiority sense, I have to disagree. It's not a guarantee, but the possibility of playing a strictly superior character (even before applying system mastery) that makes random desirable to such a player. The guarantee comes with array & point-buy, and it's the guarantee that /no one/ at the table will have a strictly superior or inferior character, based on stats, alone. If you feel you can only enjoy the game if you play a strictly-superior character, then you simply won't get to enjoy the game, with point-buy or array, /ever/ - but, with random generation, you have a chance of getting what you want, some of the time, you just have to accept that others may get it, instead.
It's really just a campaign-long variation on the practice of spot-light balance that 5e already uses to spread the fun around to players who chose different classes, and a legitimate strength of random generation.

 

[Arial Black]

I think [MENTION=6857506]Harzel[/MENTION] has the right of it. As I understand it, the idea is that since a person cannot control his or her own gross physical and mental characteristics, die rolling better reflects the random chances of birth.

And, to be fair, I get the appeal. We all want our games to be somewhat grounded in believability. Fair enough. To me though, I find the argument far too self serving. There's apparently no problems with choosing background, choosing where to place those die rolled stats (arrange to taste is apparently fine), choosing class and pretty much every other element of the character, none of which a person really has control over. But, apparently, while it's perfectly fine to declare that my character is part of the nobility, it's not acceptable to claim that I have a 14 Strength.

Again, to me, this is where the self serving element comes in. Because, if it's not true that die rolling is more realistic, then, well, there's nothing really else to recommend it. It's pretty much just power gaming. If die rolling isn't realistic, then, well, what other reason is there to roll other than to try for that 18 stat? As [MENTION=6799649]Arial Black[/MENTION] has repeatedly pointed out, playing a standard array or point buy character means that you can't be good at everything. If you want to play that charismatic barbarian, you have to give up a bit of combat power. But, if you die roll, and roll well enough, you can turn to everyone, secure in the fact that you are a good player, you did chance the dice after all, and play that character that's just flat out better.

Expanding on your 'self-serving' point, I am reminded of the 1E section about NPC scores. As time went on, Gygax personally and DMs generally found tricks to make their DMing life easier.

So the original idea was that PCs and monsters were the only thing that mattered, and dungeons were the only location that mattered, because it was 'just a game' and was intended to be about PCs fighting monsters in dungeons and stealing their stuff. So, how to generate PCs was the only thing that mattered.

Later, Gygax realised the potential of the role-playing hobby, and by the time the 1e DMG came around he put a lot of effort into world building. The different, cheaty ways of getting PC stats were just ways of quickly generating stats that were 'better' than normal. It didn't alter the concept of 3d6 in order, it was just a cheaty, easy tool to get what you wanted.

It has been mentioned that the 'd-average' (with six sides numbered 2,3,3,4,4,5) were the way that NPCs were generated, as if this somehow disproved the '3d6 in order' concept. But it doesn't.

First, '3d-average' was not a refutation or replacement of '3d6 in order', it was just a cheaty way to get 'average' scores in exactly the same way that 4d6k3 was a cheaty way to get 'better' scores; each was 'average' or 'better' compared to the background assumption of the 3d6 bell curve.

Second, the very same section that mentions '3d-average' for NPCs says that you roll '3d-average' for the scores that are not relevant to the NPC's role, but roll 3d6 for stats that matter, or even use a PC stat generation method (like 4d6k3) for stats that are crucial to the role of that NPC.

So how that section was intended to function is that the DM decides what the role of this NPC is (such as 'guard' or 'sage'), decides which stats are crucial, which are important, and which don't really matter for that role. For a guard, you might say that Str and Con are crucial, Dex matters, the others don't. Therefore, this NPC's stats would use 4d6k3 to roll his Str/Con, 3d6 to roll Dex, and 3d-average to roll Int/Wis/Cha.

Different NPcs will have different roles and therefore have different stats that matter to that role. A sage might roll Int on 4d6k3, Wis/Cha on 3d6, and Str/Dex/Con on 3d-average.

ALL of these NPCs ARE part of the population! They have stats which range from 3 to 18, just like the 3d6 in order.

Conceptually, the process of 'being born with a set of rolled stats' and 'finding a job/role' resembles how the process of evolution by natural selection works. In evolution, mutations are random. But the resulting creature is the tested against its environment, and the set of mutations which is that creature may or may not survive to breed and pass on those mutations. This means that although the mutations themselves were random, the resulting survivors are not random but are the ones best suited to survive.

So in D&D the 3d6 in order for each and every person is not the end of the process. If you want to hire a set of guards, you care about how strong and tough they are, but how knowledgeable they may be isn't something you are testing. If you are looking for a sage then you are looking for knowledge, but you don't care if the sage is weak or strong. In fact, if the sage was both knowledgeable and strong he would probably not just be a mere sage!

This brings us to the 'self-serving' roll six times and arrange, or arrange the standard array, or assign your points. None of those processes refutes the background assumption of 3d6 in order. They just simulate the process that the best suited of those randomly rolled arrays gets hired to be fighters or paladins or wizards and so on.

On another note, if you see a PC with stats of 15/14/13/12/10/8, this is not unrealistic for a person generated on 3d6 in order, although it is 'better' than average and is what we are looking for in adventurers. But if the entire party just happens to have rolled exactly the same six scores then this is unrealistic. And if every PC ever always has the same six scores or the same point-buy total and never ever has a score below 8 or above 15, this is, for me, game-breakingly unrealistic.

Game-mastering tools have moved on since 13. Now, instead of rolling the guard's Str/Con on 4d6k3, Dex on 3d6 and Int/Wis/Cha on 3d-average, DMs and game companies provide pre-generated guards and sages and commoners and so forth, and just set the stats to suit the NPC's role in the game.

This doesn't refute the background assumption of 3d6 in order! It's just an easy, cheaty way to get what the DM needs. Indeed, the pre-gen NPC scores are assigned with that 3d6 bell-curve in mind. How strong should a typical guard be? Well, look at the bell curve and decide where an average guard's Str should be.

 

[Caliban]

This doesn't refute the background assumption of 3d6 in order! It's just an easy, cheaty way to get what the DM needs. Indeed, the pre-gen NPC scores are assigned with that 3d6 bell-curve in mind. How strong should a typical guard be? Well, look at the bell curve and decide where an average guard's Str should be.

Really, who cares anymore?

 

[Lanefan]

I think [MENTION=6857506]Harzel[/MENTION] has the right of it. As I understand it, the idea is that since a person cannot control his or her own gross physical and mental characteristics, die rolling better reflects the random chances of birth.

And, to be fair, I get the appeal. We all want our games to be somewhat grounded in believability. Fair enough. To me though, I find the argument far too self serving. There's apparently no problems with choosing background, choosing where to place those die rolled stats (arrange to taste is apparently fine), choosing class and pretty much every other element of the character, none of which a person really has control over. But, apparently, while it's perfectly fine to declare that my character is part of the nobility, it's not acceptable to claim that I have a 14 Strength.

You have a point here, but I think I'd go the other direction to solve it: if you want a relatively mundane background (trader, farmer, miner, commoner, slave, foot soldier, etc.) go for it, but if you want anything exotic e.g. nobility* that could give undue advantage in the game down the road (e.g. if you're a noble you likely have wealth and resources and influence to draw on that most people do not) then you have to roll for it at very low odds and risk getting a much more mundane background.

* - unless it's a Birthright-like game where the whole point is competing noble houses or suchlike and everyone plays a noble. I'm talking about run-of-the-mill D&D.

Why? Because in most cultures nobility in particular is something you're born into...just like you're born with the genes that say you'll grow up into 17 strength rather than 10...and in most cultures there are very few nobles in the overall population. It's just...realistic.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

... adventurers usually have 27 points ... exceptional adventurers could have 32
average townsfolk could have a total of 5d6 points to spend
scores lower than 8 would be special cases since having a score lower than this is probably a significant hindrance for a typical humanoid.

So here's a concept absolutely nobody will like but I'm going to chuck it in here anyway, just for fun:

Each character rolls for its point-buy total!

Standard: 2d6 + 20. Range 22-32, average 27.

Tighter bell curve on that? 3d4 + 20. Range 23-32, average 27.5.

Flat-line it? 1d10 + 22. Range 23-32, average 27.5.

The hard variable after the '+' could of course be adjusted for an overall higher or lower-range campaign.

Have fun!

Lanefan

 

[Hriston]

I don't really feel there's important distinctions to be drawn among 'realism,' 'simulationism,' 'associated mechanics,' 'internal consistency,' and/or 'immersion' ...and/or whatever...
They're all split from the same hair.

I'm assuming the standard dictionary definition of realism, "2. the quality or fact of representing a person, thing, or situation accurately or in a way that is true to life". I feel like people are using the word realistic to describe that sort of "true-to-life-ness". I'm using immersion, on the other hand, to describe a player's strong sense of identification with his or her character which often depends on making decisions from the character's point of view. It doesn't necessarily rely on realism. You can have a very realistically created character, or a character generation process that is very realistic, but still not identify with that character to the point of immersion. Conversely, I think you can strongly identify with an unrealistic character, or a character that was built in an unrealistic way, although that might be more difficult depending on your tastes.

In one sense they can be, because what your scores represent about your character is relative. If you buy a 15 STR and choose a +2 STR race, you're going to either be the strongest PC in the party, or tied for that honor. If you /roll/ a 15 STR and choose the same race, though you have exact same 17 STR, you may or may not be 'the strongest' - everyone else might roll 12 or less in STR, or one or more others might roll 18s - your 'strongest' concept could end up the 'weakest' in a party of 18-20 STR characters.

Sure, but there's nothing more or less realistic about being the strongest or one of the strongest members of the party in contrast to being the weakest member of a very strong party. There's no difference in the level of realism between those two results, so I don't see how the score generation methods could be considered more or less realistic on that basis.

 

[Lanefan]

You'll get a high score above 15 nearly 57% of the time, and a low score below 8 nearly 30% of the time. I think it's interesting that a method that makes less likely results more likely is seen as more realistic. IMO, the most realistic game would have a realistic level of variation.

Perhaps, but then you're into the question of whether adventurers are a cut above the normal population and if so how big should that cut be. The game has for ages had 4d6x1 over straight 3d6 as the suggested 'cut above' amount, and whether this needs changing - higher or lower - is a whole other argument best left for another day.

 

[Hriston]

Perhaps, but then you're into the question of whether adventurers are a cut above the normal population and if so how big should that cut be. The game has for ages had 4d6x1 over straight 3d6 as the suggested 'cut above' amount, and whether this needs changing - higher or lower - is a whole other argument best left for another day.

In the original game, adventurers were a cut above (or at least had the chance to be) just by virtue of having ability scores at all (rolled on 3d6 no less)! 0-level characters didn't need ability scores because their effectiveness in combat depended on the type of figure they were.

I disagree with the notion that 3d6 is the baseline to which the height of 4d6 drop lowest is compared. This is because on the very same page on which 4d6 drop lowest was introduced, 3d6 (averaging) was also introduced as the score generation method for 0-level characters. One has never existed without the other.

 

[Maxperson]

Not according to the PHB. The normal range is 3-18. Certainly disease could knock that lower, I'm talking about naturally occurring low intelligence.

The bolded part is the key here. We aren't talking about the normal range when we discuss the most handicapped people in the world. Something abnormal has happened to them, so 0-2 are acceptable stats to model that. The reason that's not in the PHB is because people who are that handicapped can't be adventurers.

You mean the "tactic" of pointing out that no one (other than maybe you) has ever suggested that you use point buy/standard array for ability scores for the general population? Which makes your statement (paraphrasing here) that "the lowest ability score anyone in the world could have is an 8" something that you completely made up?

If you're familiar with the idea of not making **** up, why don't you try it sometime?

I've done it once and then owned up to it immediately, because I wasn't serious. If I felt like it, I could go back and find multiple examples of you doing it to me without a peep from you.

 

[Maxperson]

You aren't picking the numbers when you use the standard array either. Those numbers have been pre-selected for you, just as the dice do if you use them.

Sure you are. By picking the array, you have picked 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8.

It's simply one of the most likely outcomes of taking the highest three results of 4d6.

And yet you can't just pick any other set of numbers.

And to be fair, in point-buy your choice is constrained to one of 65 possible combinations. You don't get to just pick whatever numbers you want in that method either.

You are picking the numbers you end up with. That there is a more variety makes it more realistic than arrays, but less realistic than rolling.