D&D 5E Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
But in any case, I don't see how anecdotal evidence of survival rates really makes much of a difference.
Well, in my case it's anecdotal-backed-up-by-analysis...and it could be for you too. :)

I don't know how far back your record-keeping goes, or if you still have a bunch of yours and other people's character sheets from the days when you rolled stats, but if you've got enough to be meaningful then run the numbers - look at each character's starting stats (after racial adjust) and starting average, and at how long its career was in terms of number of adventures (or even number of sessions if your tracking is that precise). Assuming your games have had a reasonably consistent degree of lethality throughout, you should be able to get an idea how reliable starting stats are as a career-length* predictor in your own experience.

* - career length is a simple way of measuring overall success, I've found.

Lanefan
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
In the original edition of D&D rolling stats meant you could see how good your character was vs other characters with hardly any bonuses. The average of 3d6 is somewhere from 8-12.
It's actually 10.5; so the "mid-range" is 9-12.
Between AD&D and Basic D&D a stat discrepancy started appearing. AD&D had an esoteric progression rewarding high stats, and Basic D&D leavened the curve with a 3d6 from -3 to +3. In Basic D&D, the curve worked; just straight roll no racial or other bonuses. 2e Ad&D maintained the esoteric curve that rewarded high stats. Come third edition, they applied a linear progression to a curved roll with potential of -4 to +4 with racial and other bonuses on top of that. Fourth and Fifth edition has kept the linear curve. Rolling dice does not work with that. Hence the value of the predetermined stats with racial bonuses. Everyone is balanced. Basic D&D had a balance due to a statistics curve. If you play 5th, 4th, 3rd, and roll stats, you are going to have some swing. If you play 5th, 4th, 3rd with set basic stats, the curve will be leavened, and it will be less 'swingy'. Plus the added bonus with some players in that everyone starts off the same.
All of which in effect just reinforces my own thinking: the real problem is linear bonuses trying to match with bell-curve rolling.

The array system nukes the idea of a bell-curve. There's nothing random at all - you just assign your set numbers*.

Point-buy also ruins the bell-curve, it takes a theoretical range of 3-18 and chops it down to (effectively) 8-16.* The only remnant of any bell-curve is the tail-off of higher stats - not everyone will throw a 16 on a stat; some might opt to spread the love a bit.

* - this also raises another headache for those who want internal game-world consistency...anyone see what it is?

To me the answer is to go back to bell-curve bonuses rather than linear. Maybe 3 or less = -3, 4-5 = -2, 6-8 = -1, 9-12 = 0, 13-15 = +1, 16-17 = +2, 18 = +3, 19 or higher = +4...which is, I think, fairly close to what Basic D&D had way back when.

Lanefan
 

Oofta

Legend
Well, in my case it's anecdotal-backed-up-by-analysis...and it could be for you too. :)

I don't know how far back your record-keeping goes, or if you still have a bunch of yours and other people's character sheets from the days when you rolled stats, but if you've got enough to be meaningful then run the numbers - look at each character's starting stats (after racial adjust) and starting average, and at how long its career was in terms of number of adventures (or even number of sessions if your tracking is that precise). Assuming your games have had a reasonably consistent degree of lethality throughout, you should be able to get an idea how reliable starting stats are as a career-length* predictor in your own experience.

* - career length is a simple way of measuring overall success, I've found.

Lanefan

All you've proven is that in your games a subset of characters has a better chance of survival. One obvious reason for that is that they write up characters that take fewer risks. Which makes sense. If dex was my only decent stat I'd roll up an archer. Int? A wizard that strikes from afar. That, and if I think I'm hot stuff, I'm probably going to be more reckless.

I don't see how that's relevant.

The only thing I see that's relevant is that some people prefer a system of generating stats that ensures in most cases some characters have better overall stats than others.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
What is a "realistic" array of stats?

How is "I'm not only stronger than everyone around me, but, I'm smarter too" realistic?
Given as I know people like that in real life, I'd say it's about bang on. :)

And, considering that the baseline is the standard array, how is it realistic that the vast majority of adventurers in your method are better than the average, which is already better than the average person. Shouldn't a "realistic" method have much, much greater chances of being below average?

After all, there are LOTS of people who aren't all that strong or smart or charismatic. Yet, every PC is better than that. Usually quite significantly better than that (considering your chargen method is pretty generous). And you're still going to bang the "realistic" drum?
Fair point, though keep in mind different editions have a different "gap" between a commoner and a 1st-level character.

For my part, I'm quite willing to accept that the average adventurer is statistically a cut above the average commoner. That said, I'm not nearly as willing to accept that they are all exactly the same amount of cut above (which is what array gives), nor that each is good at a couple of stats and bad at one (again given by array). Point-buy at least allows some variance within PCs but it's still very limiting.
Oofta said:
I just don't see that. Then again I don't think a character with a 3 stat in any ability would be a viable character and an 18 (before adjustments) is overkill.
As others have said, they're rare; but I too have seen the occasional character with a 3 or 4 become not just playable but highly memorable.

Unless a goal of your character generation method is to have some PCs to be better (statistically speaking) than other PCs, I don't see the justification.
Some PCs starting with higher stat averages and some with lower is obviously going to result from random rolling. The difference between us is, however, that I'm not so hung up on it. As long as the dice give me something playable I can take it from there.

ccs said:
Not possible in 5e. There are no stat restrictions to classes. And the stat restrictions in 1e/2e were there to enforce things like flavor, rarity, & elite status.
There's a very good case to be made for putting these back in, for just those very reasons. :)

Lan-"rolling an 18 makes a character powerful; rolling a 7 makes it fun; and if I ever get both on the same character you'll hear the whoop of delight no matter where you are"-efan
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
All you've proven is that in your games a subset of characters has a better chance of survival.
If you'd read my earlier posts you'd see I'd mentioned that by my numbers starting stats were in general NOT a very good predictor of future career length / success.
One obvious reason for that is that they write up characters that take fewer risks. Which makes sense. If dex was my only decent stat I'd roll up an archer. Int? A wizard that strikes from afar. That, and if I think I'm hot stuff, I'm probably going to be more reckless.
Maybe so...needless to say, I don't remember exactly how every one of these great many characters was played (the data I was using goes back to 1982 or so). That said, if nothing else it puts to bed the idea of "oh, what awful stats - I'll get it into play then kill it off quick and roll another".

I don't see how that's relevant.
It's relevant because it shows stats aren't everything
It's relevant because it means we can still have the fun of rolling without worrying about the results quite so much
It's relevant because it shows it's not worth getting twisted up over Bob having a point-higher average than you...
...need I go on?

The only thing I see that's relevant is that some people prefer a system of generating stats that ensures in most cases some characters have better overall stats than others.
And some of us don't get our knickers in a twist over it.

Hell, you can have six 18s for all I care - it ceases to matter as soon as the first orc you meet crits all over your face while you can't roll higher than a 3 to hit.

Lanefan
 

Oofta

Legend
And some of us don't get our knickers in a twist over it.


Since when have I gotten my knickers in a twist? People keep telling me I'm upset because I don't like rolling for stats.

I just disagree with the goal of different PCs having different capabilities out of the box because of random luck. It's not something I want in the games I play.
 
Last edited:

Hussar

Legend
The randomness is what is realism. The higher stats is because my players enjoy high stats, so I give it to them.



SOME die roll methods will, yes. The vast majority will not ALMOST ALWAYS result in higher values.

But yours certainly will. 5d6 drop 2, 4d6 drop 1 and 3d6, with the ability to swap rolls is pretty much guaranteed to result in higher than standard characters. Even 4d6 drop 1 averages higher and yours is a LOT more generous than that.

As far as the 18 Str, 18 Int guy goes, yeah, I'm struggling to think of a historical figure that is as smart as Einstein (note, the MAXIMUM human Int at 1st level is 16, so, yeah, your character is smarter than Einstein) AND is stronger than the strongest of humans.

So, no, I don't think die rolling somehow increases realism. I'd actually say it goes very much the other way, because you wind up with ludicrous results like an 18 Str, 4 Con character. What does that even look like? I'm super strong, as strong as the strongest human ever can be, but I get winded walking up a single flight of stairs? Huh?
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
But yours certainly will. 5d6 drop 2, 4d6 drop 1 and 3d6, with the ability to swap rolls is pretty much guaranteed to result in higher than standard characters. Even 4d6 drop 1 averages higher and yours is a LOT more generous than that.

As far as the 18 Str, 18 Int guy goes, yeah, I'm struggling to think of a historical figure that is as smart as Einstein (note, the MAXIMUM human Int at 1st level is 16, so, yeah, your character is smarter than Einstein) AND is stronger than the strongest of humans.

Been rolling this way for several years and I have yet to see two 18s rolled like that.

So, no, I don't think die rolling somehow increases realism.

You'd be wrong. It's realism not to have control over your stats.
 
Last edited:

Ilbranteloth

Explorer
But yours certainly will. 5d6 drop 2, 4d6 drop 1 and 3d6, with the ability to swap rolls is pretty much guaranteed to result in higher than standard characters. Even 4d6 drop 1 averages higher and yours is a LOT more generous than that.

As far as the 18 Str, 18 Int guy goes, yeah, I'm struggling to think of a historical figure that is as smart as Einstein (note, the MAXIMUM human Int at 1st level is 16, so, yeah, your character is smarter than Einstein) AND is stronger than the strongest of humans.

So, no, I don't think die rolling somehow increases realism. I'd actually say it goes very much the other way, because you wind up with ludicrous results like an 18 Str, 4 Con character. What does that even look like? I'm super strong, as strong as the strongest human ever can be, but I get winded walking up a single flight of stairs? Huh?

3d6 swapping rolls won't.

And anything that allows you to drop the lowest die makes it even more unlikely to roll a 4.

While it could happen, two 18s (without racial modifiers) would be very rare, although the probability increases the more dice you roll (then drop). The 18 and 4 character even moreso because of the bell curve nature of rolling dice.

Also, the maximum human Intelligence at 1st level remains 18 as it has since the beginning of D&D. It's 16 only if you opt to use the standard array or point buy systems. Note that the "default" in 5e is roll 4d6k3, with a statement that "If you want to save time or don't like the idea of randomly determining ability scores, you can use the following scores instead: 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8." The point buy is a variant. In AL, rolling isn't an option as far as I know, so in that case the maximum is 16.

AD&D defined the categories, with an 18 as genius, and a 19-20 as supra-genius. So no, you aren't smarter than Einstein. Furthermore, what makes you think that Einstein didn't "get smarter" (gain ASI's) during his from when he started? Strength is easier to consider. You maximum lift is 30x your Strength. So an 18 is 540 lbs, which is a bit less than the world record of just under 580 lbs. The 16 Strength is a full 100 lbs less. And the strongest human ever is also not limited to 18 in the game. The natural limit is 20, which is actually pretty close (max lift 600 lbs) (19 is 570).

The argument against how unrealistic two 18s are seems entirely irrelevant to me when every standard array character in the world can have two 18s by their third ASI (two for every race except humans). And if you're going to mention time and training, keep in mind that using the 5e rules as written, you can reach level 20 in 33 adventuring days. While adventuring days don't equate to calendar days, you're still talking months to potentially go from a 16 to 20 in an ability score in the game world.

Which leads to another controversial opinion - I'm still on the fence about allowing ASIs (versus feats/skills and other learned things). Level advancement in my campaign remains glacial compared to RAW.

Yes, something like Strength makes some sense, since you can train to be stronger. But I'd argue that the training required to go from, say, being able to lift 480 lbs and 540 lbs requires an enormous amount of time dedicated to nothing but training, can't be achieved by most regardless of the training, and even those that reach such a pinnacle can do so for a very short period in their lives. So adventurers that are out adventuring are probably not putting in the training needed (and for that matter, the proper sort of training didn't exist in a pseudo-medieval world anyway).

So in addition to our horrible preference for rolling dice, in order, they very well might be the stats for the rest of your character's life. You'll be happy to know that I don't use the AD&D style modification of abilities due to aging. Instead, you start suffering from ailments such as impaired hearing and/or vision, contracting diseases, dementia, or permanent levels of exhaustion. Oh wait, I lied. Checking my table it's also possible to lose a point in a random ability (10% chance).

And that 57-year old grizzled veteran? He doesn't quite have what he had in his prime. I've even seen a comment that somebody else made someplace that it would be interesting if you lost levels of your class due to old age. More food for thought...

We're such gluttons for punishment! :)
 

Hussar

Legend
/snip
Point-buy also ruins the bell-curve, it takes a theoretical range of 3-18 and chops it down to (effectively) 8-16.* The only remnant of any bell-curve is the tail-off of higher stats - not everyone will throw a 16 on a stat; some might opt to spread the love a bit.
/snip

Actually, it's 8-15, since no stat before racial adjustments can be above 15. But, it's still a bell curve.

Been rolling this way for several years and I have yet to see two 18s rolled like that.



You'd be wrong. It's realism not to have control over your stats.

Remember, in 5e, it is not possible, using point buy, to have a stat over 15. 16+ is superhuman for a 1st level character. You're claiming that it's realistic for nearly every single PC to be superhuman. It's pretty unlikely you'll get no rolls above a 15 with your rolling system.

And that's somehow more realistic?

/snip

The argument against how unrealistic two 18s are seems entirely irrelevant to me when every standard array character in the world can have two 18s by their third ASI (two for every race except humans). And if you're going to mention time and training, keep in mind that using the 5e rules as written, you can reach level 20 in 33 adventuring days. While adventuring days don't equate to calendar days, you're still talking months to potentially go from a 16 to 20 in an ability score in the game world.

Minimum 8th level character, so, we're talking a tiny, tiny fraction of the game world. Also irrelevant for a conversation about chargen since we generally don't start at 8th level. But, as I said earlier, if you let me use standard array and then hand me two free ASI's, I'd be fine.

/snip
So in addition to our horrible preference for rolling dice, in order, they very well might be the stats for the rest of your character's life. You'll be happy to know that I don't use the AD&D style modification of abilities due to aging. Instead, you start suffering from ailments such as impaired hearing and/or vision, contracting diseases, dementia, or permanent levels of exhaustion. Oh wait, I lied. Checking my table it's also possible to lose a point in a random ability (10% chance).
/snip

Hang on. I never said ANYTHING about it being a "horrible preference". If that's what you want to do, knock yourself out. Just don't pretend that it's something it's not. If you want to completely rewrite the game and then try to use your game as a talking point, it's pretty difficult since I don't play your game and you don't play mine. Frankly, I don't want to talk about your game, I don't care. I want to talk about D&D.

But, in any case it's not a horrible preference. It's simply that trying to rationalize it as somehow "realistic" is what I'm arguing against. It's not realistic. There's a reason that virtually no sim-based games use random stat generation. If it really was realistic, don't you think games like GURPS would be using it?
 

Remove ads

Top