D&D 5E Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats

[Maxperson]

What I'm saying is that it's simply not true that stats don't have a significant impact on a characters effectiveness. You may not care if there are winners and losers in the random result lottery. You may think it's a benefit, a feature that is worth having. That for you having significantly more powerful characters than other members of the group adds to the fun. I don't.

I get that. So don't roll characters. I just wish you'd stop misrepresenting rolling while you do that is all.

I wrote a program a while back to simulate 100,000 characters using 4d6 drop lowest with 6 characters in the group.
- 2% of the groups had 1 character with at least 1 18 and another character with no stat above a 14.

1 in 50 isn't really something to be worried about. Especially if you don't have a bad DM, but instead has one that cares about fun.

Then just for the heck of it rolled up a group of 6. The lowest result was 11, 15, 9, 12, 10, 13. It's not horrible. But the highest? 12, 18, 16, 12, 12, 13.

Was this a statistical anomaly? It doesn't seem like it, more like a typical result. But you have one mediocre character and one character with a lot of strengths and no weaknesses. I'm not going to bother doing my fight analysis again, but I suspect that the former numbers will lose the sample fight against the hell hound by a few rounds while the latter will win by a few rounds. It's a significant difference.

A 12 in a non-prime stat is still a weakness. It's just not as great of a weakness as if you had -1.

But of course, I'm probably just lying about numbers again. Because after all you've analyzed "thousands" of characters over the years.

Considering that one person has already misrepresented my statement as "thousands" and been corrected, you doing it doesn't help me to believe what you say.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm not. [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION] has said straight out that some 16s and the rest 12's is enough. Those 16s will be in the prime stats, so the 12's are going to be in the non-prime stats.

That would be what non-prime means, yes.

You, I'm going to continue letting Oofta represent himself.

2. You never mentioned anything about non-prime stats in the post I quoted.

 

[Lanefan]

I wasn't judging!!!

He has created his own system and runs a Middle Earth game with it. He used the 5d6 drop the two lowest. Makes for some high numbers. Been playing with him for almost 20 years and my best rolled set was 3 18's, 17, 2 16's and a 15. Did that once and it was far and away the best set I've rolled. I rarely roll even 2 18's, and very often not even one of them.

I must have banged out well over 70 of my own characters using that system, and probably 150-odd party NPCs for my own games (unless an NPC is pre-statted by a module I always hard-roll them), and never have I rolled three 18s in a set of 6 rolls. In fact, I'm not sure I've ever had two in one set.

I've watched other people occasionally roll ridiculous stat lines - 18-18-17-17-15-15 was the best of all and it didn't last a single adventure - but I'm still waiting for my turn at one of those.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

I wrote a program a while back to simulate 100,000 characters using 4d6 drop lowest with 6 characters in the group.
- 2% of the groups had 1 character with at least 1 18 and another character with no stat above a 14.
- I compared point buy cost (using 3.5 point buy for numbers above 15). The average "gap" between best and worst in any given group was a 25 point buy difference, for example 12, 11, 10, 9, 9, 10 versus 16, 15, 9, 12, 15, 11. Those are significant differences in potential.

Now this, I have to say, is cool stuff.

By any chance do you happen to remember what the overall average point-buy cost turned out to be?

Also, how did your program (if it did at all) assign point-buy values to stats below 8?

And one thing that needs to be noted: point-buy values really skew high once an 18 gets rolled. Particularly if numbers less than 8 are treated like an 8 you could hypothetically have these two characters:

12-12-12-12-12-12 - average 12.0 - net overall bonus +6 - point buy cost 24
18-14-7-7-7-7 - average 10.0 - net overall bonus -2 - point buy cost 23

Roughly the same point cost...and about there all similarities end. Which means, while in large-data analysis pont-buy values is an OK comparison it might not always stand up for comparing individual characters.

Then just for the heck of it rolled up a group of 6. The lowest result was 11, 15, 9, 12, 10, 13. It's not horrible. But the highest? 12, 18, 16, 12, 12, 13.

When I started playing 3e I rolled up two characters (the DM let us run two at a time, old-school style) - and their starting stat rolls were surprisingly close to the two sets you show here...except, change the 9 to a 7 in the first one and one of the 12s to a 14 in the second, so even more difference between them.

High-stat guy was a human so no RA. Low-stat gal was a part-elf so her dex (I think) went up by 1: a medium number became a medium number plus one as her 15 went into intelligence.

And you can just see what comes next, can't ya?

High-stat guy had a reasonable career - 7 adventures or so, nothing spectacular, never won any of our various awards, just usefully did his bit for team and party until he eventually died an adventurer's death.
Low-stat gal had an amazing career - 14 adventures and was longest-serving party member by the last of these, won a slew of awards, highly entertaining for all, and then she too died the death.

And lest you think she did better because I was primarily playing her and ignoring the high-stat guy, that wasn't the case. High-stat guy was supposed to be the primary and going in I half expected the gal to be a throwaway, but she just kept doing so bloody well while he kept screwing up.

Lanefan

 

[Hot Laim]

Rolls are part of any rpg game, making situations and choices resolutions not 100% predictable.
But, on my opinion, there is a major diference between permanent stats of characters and attacks rolls and else...
Character creation should be 100% controlled to be as close as what players want to play.
So point buy is the better system, no doubt...

 

[Maxperson]

You, I'm going to continue letting Oofta represent himself.

2. You never mentioned anything about non-prime stats in the post I quoted.

My bad for thinking you were actually following the conversation. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Oofta]

I get that. So don't roll characters.

And you like rolling. Continue doing so. Just stop calling me a liar because I have a difference of opinion.

I just wish you'd stop misrepresenting rolling while you do that is all.

All I've said is that

• The result of rolling is random results.
• That stats can make a significant difference to the effectiveness of a character in combat.
• That based on my analysis, if you do a straight roll 4d6 drop lowest, the differences will, on average, be fairly significant.
• That for those, and a few other reasons I prefer alternative ability score generation systems such as point buy, and pretty much always have.

What am I misrepresenting?

1 in 50 isn't really something to be worried about. Especially if you don't have a bad DM, but instead has one that cares about fun.

You were the one saying such a big difference was virtually impossible. In addition, a lot of people have stated on this thread that "you roll what you roll" and "it's fair because everybody has the same chance". When I disagree, I get arguments of what "fair" is.

A 12 in a non-prime stat is still a weakness in my opinion*. It's just not as great of a weakness as if you had -1.

*I keep having to correct that for you.

But I'm also not sure what exactly you keep harping on. There may have been a point at one time, but I've lost it.

My opinion? I view these things as relative. If everybody on the team has similar stats, the actual numbers don't matter as much although I prefer standard/lower average numbers. However, if someone is succeeding on attacks 10-20% more often while doing more damage when they do hit, having 50-100% (or more) HP, making saving throws 10-50% more often ... well the numbers start to add up.

A +/-1 here and there doesn't make a huge difference. A consistent +/-2 to +/-4 across the board that I see when I do analysis does.

Considering that one person has already misrepresented my statement as "thousands" and been corrected, you doing it doesn't help me to believe what you say.

Those were the words you used as far as I remember. If I'm wrong I apologize.

 

[Maxperson]

All I've said is that

• The result of rolling is random results.
• That stats can make a significant difference to the effectiveness of a character in combat.
• That based on my analysis, if you do a straight roll 4d6 drop lowest, the differences will, on average, be fairly significant.
• That for those, and a few other reasons I prefer alternative ability score generation systems such as point buy, and pretty much always have.

What am I misrepresenting?

All the parts where you call rolled characters with decent stats or better "Mary Sue", "Superhero", etc. They aren't. It would take a 16+ in every stat to approach that sort of character.

You were the one saying such a big difference was virtually impossible.

Did not. I called 18, 18, 17, 16, 14, 14 not worth worrying about. Not the much lower set we are now discussing.

In addition, a lot of people have stated on this thread that "you roll what you roll" and "it's fair because everybody has the same chance". When I disagree, I get arguments of what "fair" is.

You seem to think that the results have to be even in order for it to be fair, and that's simply not the case. A fair method can have uneven results. All that is required for it to be fair is that everyone have the same chances to get good rolls.

*I keep having to correct that for you.

Don't. Having a 35% chance of success is not a strength.

My opinion? I view these things as relative. If everybody on the team has similar stats, the actual numbers don't matter as much although I prefer standard/lower average numbers. However, if someone is succeeding on attacks 10-20% more often while doing more damage when they do hit, having 50-100% (or more) HP, making saving throws 10-50% more often ... well the numbers start to add up.

They aren't, though. You're comparing a prime stat to a non-prime stat and then running the numbers. The prime stats are going to be comparable and pretty much everyone will have 16+ in their combat area.

A +/-1 here and there doesn't make a huge difference. A consistent +/-2 to +/-4 across the board that I see when I do analysis does.

Then stop analyzing corner cases. It's rare for there to be a consistent -2 to -4 across the board when compared to another character unless you have a horrible DM AND got very unlucky. That's a DM fault, not a system fault.

Those were the words you used as far as I remember. If I'm wrong I apologize.

Thank you.

 

[Stalker0]

My group likes to roll for a one off, but never for a campaign.

 

[Oofta]

All the parts where you call rolled characters with decent stats or better "Mary Sue", "Superhero", etc. They aren't. It would take a 16+ in every stat to approach that sort of character.

Again, stating your opinion as fact. We have different definitions of "Mary Sue", "Superhero", etc.

I'll say this one last time. Get. Over. Yourself.

You don't get to tell me what my opinion is.

Did not. I called 18, 18, 17, 16, 14, 14 not worth worrying about. Not the much lower set we are now discussing.

It's unlikely. It happened. Two eighteens for a character are going to happen about .38% of the time according to this independent article.

But significant differences in the results of 4d6 drop lowest are pretty common as anyone with some d6's and a little time can tell you (and have). I've tried to do some analysis on overall trends and given you samples that you choose to ignore.

You seem to think that the results have to be even in order for it to be fair, and that's simply not the case. A fair method can have uneven results. All that is required for it to be fair is that everyone have the same chances to get good rolls.

And again, you opinion stated as fact. We have different definitions of "fair". I don't think random results are fair unless averaged out over time.

Anyway, this is going nowhere and I should not let myself get pulled into this BS argument. You keep stating your opinion as fact, deciding that your definition of a term is truth, that there is only one true way.

Have a day.