D&D 5E Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats

[Captain Panda]

Also: what is it with all the 'Captains?' Did a lot of lieutenants get promoted recently? Have a lot of new ships been launched?

It's more of a superhero title than a military rank or designation that I am in charge of a ship. Think of it in the Tick's voice. "Captaaaain Paaaanda!"

Though to reply to getting used to the bile being thrown around, I kind of hope not. It's not something I've seen a lot in actual play.

 

[Satyrn]

Also: what is it with all the 'Captains?' . . . Have a lot of new ships been launched? ;P

Aye. Starfinder.

 

[Hussar]

[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], just so I'm understanding this, are you seriously arguing that a character with higher stats won't perform better than a character with lower stats?

 

[Tony Vargas]

[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], just so I'm understanding this, are you seriously arguing that a character with higher stats won't perform better than a character with lower stats?

The logic is unassailable: the character with fewer and/or poorer options will force the player to come up with clever improv that'll work even better than everything the strictly mechanically superior character could do. While strict mechanical superiority locks down the creativity and free will of the other hypothetical player!

It's the same infallible mechanism that has balanced Tier 1 casters and Tier 5 non-casters so flawlessly in the past.

Seriously, give it up, there's no arguing with a point like that.

it's pure white room and not really indicative of how things would play out in a real campaign.

It's a simplified, clear, comparison that isolates the difference in question, and demonstrates its impact. In a given instance other factors may overwhelm that impact - but they could as easily do so in the opposite direction.

I'm also curious why [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION] is against fair rolling which results in "unfair" stat results

I'm struck by that, as well. Two gamblers roll the same fair dice with the same stakes for the same payoff. That's fair.
One wins, one loses. Not unfair, just gambling.

Statistics might determine that the chance of winning was 1 in 6. That still might not make the game unfair, but might make it imprudent to play for stakes you couldn't afford to lose. No anecdote about winners changes that.

 

[Maxperson]

Dude, you've done nothing but attack and troll. It's fine that you like rolling for stats.

I only ever troll trolls, and even then rarely. Pointing out the severe flaws in your process is not an attack.

You wanted real world scenarios showing effectiveness because you stated that in real world scenarios it doesn't make much of a difference. So I wrote some code to mimic real world scenarios. I think it's clear they proved how much of a difference ability scores will make at most tables.

Yes, I want a real world scenario, not the white room scenario you are going about. A real world scenario doesn't involve the same race, class and class abilities choices for both PCs. The code you wrote was white room, not real world.

Of course these are just concrete facts based on average party statistics instead of opinion so obviously they don't matter.

The one and only reason that they don't matter is that they are white room examples, and not indicative of real world situations. A party isn't going to have two characters who are identical except for stats, at least not the overwhelming majority of them. I grant that some group somewhere might want to roll up 6 identical dwarf fighters, pick the same feats and class abilities, and arm and armor themselves identically, but good god that's going to be rare.

P.S. I just love the fact that 4th level PCs will never fight a hell hound is one of your main beefs. Or that it's "unrealistic" that I simulate a fight against level appropriate monsters to get an idea of how effective they'd be at their roles. Too, too funny.

Again you accuse me of things that I never said. I'm finding it harder and harder to believe your original claim.

 

[Maxperson]

[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], just so I'm understanding this, are you seriously arguing that a character with higher stats won't perform better than a character with lower stats?

No.

 

[Maxperson]

It's a simplified, clear, comparison that isolates the difference in question, and demonstrates its impact. In a given instance other factors may overwhelm that impact - but they could as easily do so in the opposite direction.

I've never argued that there was no impact, though. A white room example can be used to show that there is a difference, but not what the difference might be. The difference in race, class and abilities between two characters will impact the results of the fight by a great deal. That's the problem I'm having with the example.

 

[Oofta]

I've never argued that there was no impact, though. A white room example can be used to show that there is a difference, but not what the difference might be. The difference in race, class and abilities between two characters will impact the results of the fight by a great deal. That's the problem I'm having with the example.

So lets get this straight. My analysis isn't valid because
- Level 4 or 5 characters could never possibly face a CR 3 monster
- I can't compare the same class, build and race

Basically, there is nothing that could be done that will show how much of a difference there is. Since we can't possibly know how much of a difference it makes the difference is therefore negligible.

I'd say I show it pretty clearly - it's roughly a 15-20 percent difference in effectiveness. Which makes sense given the extra percentage chance to hit, additional damage on a hit and additional HP. Not to mention the increase in saving throws (even if Dexterity is the worst save for either).

 

[Tony Vargas]

I've never argued that there was no impact, though.

You have dismissed the impact as unimportant:

The impact is pretty minor. Class abilities, player brains and roleplaying have a much greater impact on the game.

A white room example can be used to show that there is a difference, but not what the difference might be.

Seems to have done both. The higher stat version had twice the chance of survival in a difficult situation. That's a difference, even a quantified one, and hardly minor

What it doesn't do is prove that there's anything unfair about it.

The difference in race, class and abilities between two characters

Are not relevant in an analysis of the effects of differences in stats. Fortunately, they're easy to factor out, by just holding them the same.

 

[Maxperson]

So lets get this straight. My analysis isn't valid because
- Level 4 or 5 characters could never possibly face a CR 3 monster

No.

- I can't compare the same class, build and race

Feel free. It will have nothing to do with real game situations, though.

I'd say I show it pretty clearly - it's roughly a 15-20 percent difference in effectiveness. Which makes sense given the extra percentage chance to hit, additional damage on a hit and additional HP. Not to mention the increase in saving throws (even if Dexterity is the worst save for either).

In a white room only. It doesn't show diddly for comparisons between PCs of different races, classes and abilities, like will happen in a real game.