D&D 5E Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats

[Tony Vargas]

And I freely acknowledge that what is "fair" is an opinion. Google "studies on fairness" sometime.

In the context of a game, 'fair' is fairly(npi) easy to pin down. Do all the players have the same options, do they use the same gear, etc? Random stat generation is the same for each player, you're rolling the same kinds of presumably-fair dice, using the same method, everyone has the same chance of getting an inferior or superior character out of it. The results may not be balanced (except coincidentally), but the process is fair.
I don't see how pleading opinion changes that.

I can certainly see how cheating can change that, of course. And, one of the downsides of the random version is that it does leave room open to cheat: you can't audit a character's stats and determine 'cheat' vs 'got lucky.' With array (or with more difficulty, point-buy) you can look at a set of stats and determine if they are conforming.

I shouldn't have to google "+1 is greater than +0"

Not unless you want to obfuscate the issue and make it seem more complex or subjective than it really is.

So no, my 20% difference wasn't a best case scenario to prove my point. It was just one sample out of a nearly infinite number of possibilities. However, I think it should be obvious that the guy with higher ability scores is going to fair better every time.

And it focused on the issue of stat differences. You could probably run it with the same stats, but one character is a fighter (w/wo Action Surge & Second Wind) and the other a barbarian (w/wo Rage), for instance. See how much more or less of a difference class makes than stat bonus did.

 

[Wiseblood]

And I freely acknowledge that what is "fair" is an opinion. Google "studies on fairness" sometime.

I shouldn't have to google "+1 is greater than +0" (BTW that's the average difference: +/-1 for every ability mod).

How much of an impact it had on my test scenario kind of surprised me. What was even more surprising was that if I didn't use the breath weapon for the Hell Hound (I didn't want to over-emphasize the Dexterity save) it changed to Low-Guy wins 51% and Max-Guy winning 80%. It appears that winning initiative (ties always go to the PC) is more important than I thought, especially in a close fight. Or maybe because you always take damage even if you do save?

So no, my 20% difference wasn't a best case scenario to prove my point. It was just one sample out of a nearly infinite number of possibilities. However, I think it should be obvious that the guy with higher ability scores is going to fair better every time.

If I read your test scenario right, it looked like the impact was greater at low levels. Receding rapidly at levels that have large jumps in power. Did you look at high level play?

My players love rolling stats. To create parity I then let them use stats rolled by anyone at the table in lieu of their own.

Personally I do not like ANY stat generation method now that I have looked at them.

 

[Jacob Marley]

And I freely acknowledge that what is "fair" is an opinion. Google "studies on fairness" sometime.

I shouldn't have to google "+1 is greater than +0" (BTW that's the average difference: +/-1 for every ability mod).

How much of an impact it had on my test scenario kind of surprised me. What was even more surprising was that if I didn't use the breath weapon for the Hell Hound (I didn't want to over-emphasize the Dexterity save) it changed to Low-Guy wins 51% and Max-Guy winning 80%. It appears that winning initiative (ties always go to the PC) is more important than I thought, especially in a close fight. Or maybe because you always take damage even if you do save?

So no, my 20% difference wasn't a best case scenario to prove my point. It was just one sample out of a nearly infinite number of possibilities. However, I think it should be obvious that the guy with higher ability scores is going to fair better every time.

What your analysis does is it provides us with a baseline for discussion. It establishes the inherent mathematical outcomes within this edition, assuming all other things being equal. What it doesn't do, however, is put a period on the discussion of survivability. In order to examine this idea of survivability we need to build upon the math you provided and examine how human behavior magnifies or mitigates the mathematical disparity. And, unfortunately, this is a very difficult discussion to have as all experiences are anecdotal.

However, I think it should be obvious that the guy with higher ability scores is going to fair better every time.

This line assumes human behavior will be identical (or at least similar enough to not affect the outcome). However, many of us have noticed within our games that the mere act of changing the initial ability scores will affect a myriad of decisions made throughout character creation and campaign play. I think this is where some of us are getting hung up on with your algorithm. Your algorithm doesn't match our experiences. So the question ought to be: What is different in our games?

Within my own game, I noticed two things: First, players tend to place higher ability scores on lower tiered characters. Second, players tend to play higher ability score characters more recklessly than lower ability score characters. The combination of those two decisions I believe is mitigating a portion of the inherent mathematical differences between any two sets of stats.

It is also important to consider that my players have a character stable and adventure within a sandbox environment. This may influence why my players choose to build characters the way they do. A campaign that runs a more traditional 4/5 person party through a linear adventure may have wildly different experiences.

 

[Tony Vargas]

This line assumes human behavior will be identical (or at least similar enough to not affect the outcome).

Human behavior can be pretty weird. But, for any odd human behavior resulting in a high-stat character being willfully less effective than it might be, the obverse could also be going on...

However, many of us have noticed within our games that the mere act of changing the initial ability scores will affect a myriad of decisions made throughout character creation and campaign play. I think this is where some of us are getting hung up on with your algorithm. Your algorithm doesn't match our experiences. So the question ought to be: What is different in our games?

First, we might ask the question, why does it matter to an analysis of the mechanics, what anyone may do, be it intentionally, unintentionally, actually or hypothetically, filtered through biased reporting or otherwise?

The mechanics remain the same.

Within my own game, I noticed two things: First, players tend to place higher ability scores on lower tiered characters.

Sensible, actually. If you've been wanting to play a concept that can only be modeled with an inferior class, waiting for superior stats to implement it could narrow the gap. A reasonable exercise of build-to-concept system mastery. But, it in no way mitigates the analysis of random generation. It just points out another traditional bug/feature of D&D: class imbalance.

Second, players tend to play higher ability score characters more recklessly than lower ability score characters.

I've seen the opposite. Get bad enough stats, and high-risk (hopefully high-reward) play is a solid strategy. If you die, you get to roll up a better character. If you succeed, the payoff (more/better magic items, for instance), may narrow the gap. Of course, that was back in 1e when (a) I still used random generation and (b) "reckless play" included touching anything.

The combination of those two decisions I believe is mitigating a portion of the inherent mathematical differences between any two sets of stats.

Yeah, a build-to-concept system-master might use his lucky stats to help drag his bleeding-edge-optimized low-Tier build up to a level of determined mediocrity that could occasionally outshine an indifferently-built & played Tier 2. But, a system master committed to flat-out min/maxing would have no compunctions about using his 'lucky' stats to make some wildly over-the-top Tier 0 build, instead.
Of course, back in the day, some lucky rolls wouldn't just let you play a flat-out-better character, they might 'unlock' a flat-out-better class, too.
::shrug::

 

[Lanefan]

I can certainly see how cheating can change that, of course. And, one of the downsides of the random version is that it does leave room open to cheat: you can't audit a character's stats and determine 'cheat' vs 'got lucky.'

Which is why rolling for stats should always be done in such a way that the rolls can be verified or witnessed as they happen......

 

[Caliban]

Which is why rolling for stats should always be done in such a way that the rolls can be verified or witnessed as they happen......

Depending on the DM, that can still lead to heavily inflated stats. It's just technically not cheating because the DM felt sorry for you and let you reroll your character 5 times until you got a "decent" set of stats.

(And I'm not exaggerating for effect - my roommate saw exactly this happen in a game that started a week ago that he is playing in. 4d6 drop the lowest, puppy dog eyes at the DM, and oddly enough everyone has phenomenal stats. )

 

[Hussar]

Hang on a sec. "Tier 1" and "Tier 3"? This isn't 3e. Since when are 5e classes considered "tiered"? Do people consider class balance in 5e to be that poor?

Oh, and apropos of nothing, my current group is all human, 2 rangers, a monk, a paladin and a fighter, so, it's not like "everyone will choose very different races/classes" every time.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Hang on a sec. "Tier 1" and "Tier 3"? This isn't 3e. Since when are 5e classes considered "tiered"?

4e & 5e both conspicuously used 'Tier' for groupings of levels, so there's that.

Do people consider class balance in 5e to be that poor?

[sblock="Well, sure, inevitably so."] I mean, first you barely-kinda-sorta-almost balance classses by taking away almost all the Tier 1 & 2 casters' daily spells, giving them a handful of encounters and a pair of at-wills as nothing like compensation for it, then turn around and give all the non-casters comparable resources. Then, you give the casters back all their dailies, take away most of the encounters, but let 'em keep the at-wills, let them all cast spontaneously, and take almost everything away from the non-casters. That's not a recipe for balance.
Nor is 'classic feel' exactly a goal that requires balance: the game was notoriously imbalanced in its classic form, that created a definite feel, a feel which 5e does a great job of evoking.

But the point of Class Tiers really boiled down to versatility, in particular, and 5e casters, since they all cast spontaneously, are not exactly lacking in that department, even relative to 3e. OTOH, to drop anyone below Tier 3 you'd have to rank sub-classes, rather than classes, with casting of one sort or another so prevalent, and even then, the few benighted sub-classes that lack versatility almost entirely put in solid DPR performances, keeping them out of the last two bad-at-even-what-you're-good-at Tiers.
[/sblock]

But I think it was just a broader point about random roll as a method, that, sure, it's not balanced, but neither was a lot of other stuff in D&D, and people managed to have fun with it anyway.

Oh, and apropos of nothing, my current group is all human, 2 rangers, a monk, a paladin and a fighter, so, it's not like "everyone will choose very different races/classes" every time.

Join the club.

 

[Maxperson]

The first time I ran 5e, the party had 2 gnome bard entertainers.
FWIW (nothing, IMHO, just sharing because it was amusing - they both loved vicious mockery, too, and providef some bright moments in an otherwise horrid adventure).

Did those two gnomes have the exact same spells know, spells memorized, same items and same college? Were the players the same in ability?

You would have to make an argument, rather than just an assertion.

I have.

True enough. Of course. If the high stat PC were the Tier 1 class, it might only amplify the disparity with a low-stat, Tier 3 character.

It's not completely irrelevant to argue that one source of imbalance is less significant than another, though, the effort involved in avoiding stat imbalances (use array) is much easier than avoiding class imbalances (redesign all the classes).

Player ability is huge, though. In my group if I had a wizard with a 12 int, a second guy had an identical wizard except for a 16 int, and a third guy had an identical wizard except for the a 20 int, I would destroy them both with combat effectiveness. I am far better than either one of them at playing spell casters. The guy with the 16 int would be much better than the last guy, since he's a decent player of spell casters. The last guy gets lost with fighter abilities and constantly forgets abilities and feats. He'd be abysmal as a caster, despite the much higher score.
[MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION] put at issue different players playing the two different stat arrays. It was never about identical PCs in all ways except for stats. That means that class tier, class abilities, items, feats, and differing levels of player ability are all part of the equation, no matter how much [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION] wants to make it just about stats. All of that has to be taken into consideration in order to figure out the comparative difference in the two sets of arrays.

If all that [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION] wants to show is that higher stats has a greater impact than lower stats, I've already acknowledged that. It's just a minor deal when compared to all of those other things.

 

[Maxperson]

Hang on a sec. "Tier 1" and "Tier 3"? This isn't 3e. Since when are 5e classes considered "tiered"? Do people consider class balance in 5e to be that poor?

Oh, and apropos of nothing, my current group is all human, 2 rangers, a monk, a paladin and a fighter, so, it's not like "everyone will choose very different races/classes" every time.

Yeah. They have divided up 5e classes into 3 tiers. It's tighter than 3e so tier 4 and 5 got eliminated.