D&D 5E Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats

[Hriston]

If you are selecting specific numbers, which you are when you use point buy or array, then you are by definition picking those specific numbers.

Neither of those methods allow you to select specific numbers without also dictating that you also select other specific numbers. In other words, they require that you select an entire array of numbers. With standard array, you have exactly one choice, which is no choice at all; just like rolling, you get what you get. With point-buy, you have 65 arrays from which to choose, but you don't get to choose which numbers are in those 65 arrays. They have to add up to 27 points, so the freedom to select specific individual numbers is a pipe-dream. No method allows you to do that. Where the methods are different is that with rolling, the results are hidden until you roll, while with the other two methods, you can see the results beforehand. I think this may just boil down to the fact that some people like surprises, and some people don't. Realism isn't an issue.

Yes you could, which would result in random selection of arrays, but wouldn't really be point buy at all.

Yes, it would. Each one of the 65 arrays adds up to 27 points, which is exactly what point-buy is all about.

The bolded portion is neither stated, nor implied.

It's implied by the general design principal of 5e that places the responsibility of filling in any gaps in the rules as needed squarely on the DM's shoulders. The game is full of holes like this. It's by design.

All it says is that you can roll and stops there.

Exactly! The DM is supposed to do the rest.

The implication, without anything specific to say otherwise, is to use the default method of rolling that the game provides.

The game does not provide a default rolling method for creating general characters. It only provides a rolling method for creating adventurers, i.e. characters with at least one adventuring class or the equivalent.

In 1e, while it's not hard-written it's at least strongly implied that the general (human) population are on a 3d6 bell curve for each stat.

Not only is this not written in the 1e rules, but it's directly contradicted by the inclusion of 3d{2,3,3,4,4,5} for general characters. That method establishes the curve along which scores are distributed in the general population according to the rules of that game.

 

[Oofta]

The game does not provide a default rolling method for creating general characters. It only provides a rolling method for creating adventurers, i.e. characters with at least one adventuring class or the equivalent.

I would just note that not all "adventurers" need to be PCs

NPC STATISTICS
When you give an NPC game statistics, you have three
main options: giving the NPC only the few statistics it
needs, give the NPC a monster stat block, or give the
NPC a class and levels. The latter two options require a
bit of explanation.

...

USING CLASSES AND LEVELS
You can create an NPC just as you would a player
character, using the rules in the Player's Handbook.

​

Despite what certain people are saying, the book is quite explicit on how to create NPCs and that you only use the rules from the PHB if you are creating an NPC with a class and levels. Since most NPCs don't have either (and unlike previous editions) there are no NPC classes, it's pretty obvious that you only roll for a tiny minority of the general population in most campaigns, and then only if you use rolling for generating ability scores. So could you roll for ability scores? Sure. If you roll for PCs as well and have a unique NPC.

I don't think this was shortsighted, I don't believe the writers are idiots. They probably just decided that it doesn't add anything to the game to have ability scores when it does not matter.

 

[Eric Olson]

> In 1e, while it's not hard-written it's at least strongly implied that the general (human) population are on a 3d6 bell curve for each stat.
Not only is this not written in the 1e rules, but it's directly contradicted by the inclusion of 3d{2,3,3,4,4,5} for general characters. That method establishes the curve along which scores are distributed in the general population according to the rules of that game.

The 3d{2,3,3,4,4,5} distribution is the same general bell curve as 3d6, except the extremes are removed, so the bell is narrower. Same average. The PC curve (4d6-L) is very similar to the 3d6 bell curve, except shifted 2 points higher in each stat. (Point buy distribution is similar to the 4d6-L curve, except the extremes are also removed)
And this matters for module/encounter balancing and PC vs PC balancing. (which helps the DM, ultimately)

 

[Hriston]

I would just note that not all "adventurers" need to be PCs

Right. Adventurer is just a convenient way to denote a character that's a member of a class, whether a PC or an NPC.

Despite what certain people are saying, the book is quite explicit on how to create NPCs and that you only use the rules from the PHB if you are creating an NPC with a class and levels.

Well, more to the point is that if you use those rules, located in Part 1 of the PHB, "Creating a Character", specifically following the steps in "Chapter 1: Step-by-Step Characters", the character you'll end up with will be an adventurer. That isn't to say that elements of those rules aren't appropriate for creating other types of non-adventuring NPCs, though. For example, when I create an NPC of a given race, I give it the racial traits from the PHB, as suggested in the DMG, whether the NPC is an adventurer or not.

Since most NPCs don't have either (and unlike previous editions) there are no NPC classes, it's pretty obvious that you only roll for a tiny minority of the general population in most campaigns, and then only if you use rolling for generating ability scores. So could you roll for ability scores? Sure. If you roll for PCs as well and have a unique NPC.

I think this is an overly restrictive reading of the quoted rules. There's no indication that you can only roll if the NPC is an adventurer, nor is it required that you use the same ability generation rules for PCs and adventuring NPCs.

 

[Satyrn]

In 1e, while it's not hard-written it's at least strongly implied that the general (human) population are on a 3d6 bell curve for each stat. Since then guidance on how to roll common NPCs has been spotty at best (3e tried; at least it had some guidelines)

Is there some way I can nominate this for "the year's biggest understatement about 3e" award. Is there an ENnie for that?

 

[Hriston]

The 3d{2,3,3,4,4,5} distribution is the same general bell curve as 3d6, except the extremes are removed, so the bell is narrower.

The curves seem very dissimilar to me.

 

[Lanefan]

The curves seem very dissimilar to me.

A tighter curve that still goes all the way from 3-18 can be derived from using 5d4-2 instead of straight 3d6. Using physical dice this is obviously more cumbersome, but electronically the effort required should be about the same.

 

[Maxperson]

Neither of those methods allow you to select specific numbers without also dictating that you also select other specific numbers. In other words, they require that you select an entire array of numbers. With standard array, you have exactly one choice, which is no choice at all; just like rolling, you get what you get. With point-buy, you have 65 arrays from which to choose, but you don't get to choose which numbers are in those 65 arrays. They have to add up to 27 points, so the freedom to select specific individual numbers is a pipe-dream. No method allows you to do that. Where the methods are different is that with rolling, the results are hidden until you roll, while with the other two methods, you can see the results beforehand. I think this may just boil down to the fact that some people like surprises, and some people don't.

That's simply incorrect. As you spend points for a specific number, you are choosing that number. You are also choosing the rest within the limitations of the point buy. You are not getting a random array like you would if you randomly rolled one of 65 arrays. Rather you are specifically selecting all the numbers of whichever of those 65 arrays you desire. It's even more obvious with the single array. You are picking all six of those numbers. You can't be doing otherwise.

Realism isn't an issue.

And this is objectively wrong. More than one person here has said realism is the issue, so it is. You don't get to decide what is or is not an issue for us. Random selection of numbers, even within the limits of rolling, is more realistic than selecting specific numbers via point buy or array. It's also more realistic than random selection of the 65 point buy arrays, since point buy doesn't allow for the full range of PC stats.

It's implied by the general design principal of 5e that places the responsibility of filling in any gaps in the rules as needed squarely on the DM's shoulders. The game is full of holes like this. It's by design.

There is no hole. It says you can roll, and provides a default method to roll. It's seamless.

The game does not provide a default rolling method for creating general characters. It only provides a rolling method for creating adventurers, i.e. characters with at least one adventuring class or the equivalent.

There is no rule anywhere in 5e that says that the PHB method of rolling is for adventurers only.

 

[Tony Vargas]

While we all agree that PCs are intended to usually be above average, we're not given a clear way of knowing what the average is that they're supposed to be above.

Lan-"which, when you think about it, is kind of silly; in that giving decent guidance on this would have taken maybe two or three lines of text in the DMG"-efan

Commoners' straight 10s look like a hint.

 

[Hussar]

since point buy doesn't allow for the full range of PC stats.

You keep repeating that like it's true. It's not. In THAT system, the full range of PC stats is 8-15. Die rolling may allow for a broader range of stats, but, again, that isn't a realism issue, it's a personal taste one. It is no more realistic that a 1st level PC has a max cap of 20 (after racial bonuses) or 17. They are arbitrary numbers and have nothing to do with anything in the game world.

That you don't like a max cap of 17 (again, after racials) is on you. It's nothing to do with realism.