D&D 5E Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats

[Arial Black]

RPGs can be thought of as if they were species of life. Instead of cats, dogs, hamsters and so on, we have D&D, Runequest, Stormbringer, 13th Age, and so forth. Instead of mammals, birds, insects, and others, we have Fantasy RPGs, Sci-Fi, Superheros, and other genres.

And, just like living species, these RPGs evolve; they change over time to suit their environment, and may die out if they no longer meet the requirements of the consumers.

In the same way that you can study the DNA of life-forms to understand the past of a particular species, or see if some are closely related to others on the Tree of Life (or even previous forms of the same species), we can study RPGs in the same way. We can see which games are direct ancestors/descendants of which other games; check their metaphorical DNA.

D&D 5E is the current phenotype of D&D. Earlier versions still exist, and there is little doubt that the game will continue to evolve (unless it fails to adapt to the changing needs of the player base and just dies out).

In this context, the characteristics of D&D 5E can be traced back through its ancestor editions. We can see where certain changes happened. Like with life-forms, those characteristics either change or stay the same. If they don't change (and that change may be appearing or disappearing), then they stay the same.

Let's take Armour Class. It has evolved over the editions in that 'higher is better' now when 'lower is better' is what it used to be. But it has not changed in one crucial way: it models armour as making the wearer harder to hit, when most species games model armour as having either no impact on how easy it is to hit the wearer or makes it even easier to hit the wearer, protecting the wearer by reducing or eliminating incoming damage.

What the heck am I banging on about this for?

One of the things that has remained unchanged over the existence of every incarnation of D&D is the 3d6 bell curve as the background against which ability scores are measured. It's right there in the metaphorical DNA of 5E, even if it isn't directly outright stated in any 5E book. We can study what is written in 5E and clearly see the truth of it by studying ithe continuing impact of the 3d6 bell curve.

At its core, the general population is modeled by the 3d6 bell curve. By that, I mean that the game assumes that every NPC member of every playable race has ability scores as if they were randomly rolled, in order, on 3d6, and then any racial modifiers applied.

The population as a whole was assumed to be as if fairly rolled randomly on 3d6. As players, any PC we make is conceptually assumed to be one of that population. It's as if we looked at the population of the game world and said, "I want to play that one!"

Although conceptually we are choosing to play an existing person, and that person's ability scores are on that bell curve, in order to actually do that then the DM would have to randomly generate ability scores on 3d6 in order for every single person in the world! The players can then choose which one's to play, presumably playing the one's whose ability scores were on the high side. In this theoretical bell curve population, around half will have higher than average stats and half will have lower than average, and it's likely that the people who are most likely to be adventurers are also most likely to have higher than average ability scores.

Now, that's a lot of work to end up with 4-6 PCs! So Gary Gygax realised that you can approximate this concept without the DM needing to generate 7 billion NPC character sheets! The players can roll stats themselves, using one of various methods that would skew the 3d6 bell curve to get higher than the average results for PCs as compared to that unmodified bell curve.

But the crucial thing to remember is that whether or not you are using '3d6 twelve times arrange any six to suit' or '4d6k3 six time arrange to suit' or later point-buy or array, every single resulting PC is conceptually one of the population that (probably) got lucky on that 3d6 bell curve. Every single PC, no matter how they are actually generated at that table, is conceptually one of that population that was generated on that 3d6 bell curve.

The result is not only that any method must be within 3-18 for any stat (before racial modifiers), but that every possible combination of 3d6 six times is a valid character concept. In any population, any combination of six stats of 3-18 (before racial) is a possible PC, even if it is unlikely. Six 18s would be very unlikely, as would six 3s, but each is a possible result of 3d6 six times and therefore a possible person and a possible PC concept.

Six 18s (or six 3s) would be very unlikely, and we know exactly how unlikely. Six 10s is also unlikely, although a lot more likely than six 18s or six 3s! The chances of six 18s or six threes are 216 to the power 6 (or about 1 in 5 x 10 to the 74th power, if my calculator is to be believed). However, how many times the DM has to generate an NPC before he actually rolls those six 18s may be fewer or greater than that mathematical expectation.

The point of all this is that the valid idea space of any (pre-racial) set of ability scores remains any combination of 3-18 six times. Any method that takes any of those possibilities away is also taking away valid concepts attached to those scores. Any method that limits your starting pre-racial scores to (for example) between 8 and 15 has taken away every concept that included a score of less than 8 and/or more than 15. Such a method therefore certainly removes valid character concepts. In comparison, any method which allows any result of 3-18 in any score (4d6k3, for example) has not taken any concept away.

Therefore, a statement like 'this method lets me play any concept I want' can only be objectively true if that method allows any combination of 3-18 for six scores to be generated by that method.

Point-buy does not allow that. Rolling does.

 

[Maxperson]

YOU achieved nothing. The dice did all the work for you.

While I'm sure they aren't that far off, right now my dice don't roll themselves.

 

[Maxperson]

Its not like you 'achieve' a 3, but ASIs will certainly let you achieve a 20 by levelling

Which does nothing for character concepts at first level that can't be achieved due to stopping at 15 before racial modifiers. Further, since many concepts require very low stats, a 3 is an achievement under certain circumstances. At least as far as any number can be considered an achievement.

You have your stereotypical just-wanna-hit-da-orc-wit-m'ax Champion player, what's he supposed to play to get there when random chargen doesn't come through with a high STR?

Something else, or, I don't know, maybe just work with the DM. Any DM worth half a grain of salt or better will work with the player to get him the character he wants. There may be some give and take involved, but you'll get there.

Every class is workable with a standard array.

But not every concept, and you have no chance to ever achieve those concepts. Every concept can potentially be achieved played via rolling, even if some specific concepts don't work this time around.

 

[guachi]

Just out of curiosity.
1. Does anyone ever play a point buy or array character with less than 14 post racial in their primary stat?
2.When you play with point buy or array do you nearly always put a 16 post racial in your primary stat?
3. When you play with point buy or array character how often do you place your 2nd highest stat into either con or whatever other stat you need to help your AC?
4. When you play with point buy, how often do you totally dump a stat to an 8 or 9?

1. I never have and I've never seen it.
2. I almost always do. At the table, I've only seen it with Dwarven Wizards. No one else I've seen ever creates a character that can't (and doesn't) get a 16 in the Primary stat. I had a human that had 5 14s once. That was fun.
3. For me, always as I usually play martial PCs, aside from the aforementioned 5 14s guy who couldn't avoid doing that. I've seen a bard who had low STR, DEX, and CON, and he didn't like being so squishy. It just wasn't fun at low levels. Otherwise there are lots of 12s and 14s in CON and DEX. Further, they are useful saves to have.
4. I almost never dump but many others do. New players do (because they have to) if they take the standard array for quicker character generation.

 

[Caliban]

While I'm sure they aren't that far off, right now my dice don't roll themselves.

Are you seriously taking credit for rolling higher stats? It's not a skill, it's just luck. Building a character with point buy is skill.

 

[Caliban]

I recently made a high elf cleric who had a 15 in their wisdom. They didn't have a 16 until lvl 4, when I took the observant feat.

And I have several warlocks who only have a 14 Charisma. One is a Goliath warlock.

 

[Scoobs]

If it ain't broke don't fix it, point buy is fine for those who want to min/max their characters. Rolling will more times than not result in dissatisfied players who end up dropping out because they aren't happy with their stats.

 

[Maxperson]

Are you seriously taking credit for rolling higher stats? It's not a skill, it's just luck. Building a character with point buy is skill.

If you had been paying attention to what I have been saying, you'd know that it isn't about higher for me. So am I taking credit for rolling the dice? Yes, absolutely. They don't roll themselves.

 

[Caliban]

If you had been paying attention to what I have been saying, you'd know that it isn't about higher for me. So am I taking credit for rolling the dice? Yes, absolutely. They don't roll themselves.

Hahahaha! Never change Maxie, never change.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So...3e and 4e have RAW - Rules As Written - while 1e 2e and 5e have GAW - Guidelines As Written.
Which would go a long way to explaining why a player who cut her teeth on 3e or 4e would look at 5e's relaxed rules much differently than someone who started with 0e or 1e.

Guidelines as Vaguely Outlined inspite of Blatant Contradictions, maybe. (GAVOIBC? nah)

I'll illustrate what I mean by simply saying the exact same thing you did, but apply it to the standard array of 15/14/13/12/10/8: "I use the standard array because it lets me create the concept I want".

Is this statement true? Well, it can be true in the sense that I can then qualify my statement by stating that every 'concept I want' just happens to be satisfied by some arrangement of those six stats, so I couldn't be proved to be lying.

That works well enough for random generation, as well. Once you've rolled in roll-and-arrange generation, you have exactly the same ability to shuffle stats around to create the concept you want. You could even roll exactly that same array.

The two are basically equivalent, as far as that goes. The difference being that if you form your concept ahead of time, it can be informed by foreknowledge of the array method, while conversely, if you don't have a clear idea what you want, it may be inspired by the array that results from the random method.

The advantages of each method are clear. Both give the exact same degrees of freedom in designing the character you want: the ability to arrange scores as you like. Array works better for mulling over a concept before you generate it, since the array is a known parameter. Random has the clear advantage of possibly inspiring a character idea when you see what you've rolled.

Neither is exactly ideal for building the character you wanted before you started that process. Array gives you two good, two modest, one average and one low stat. If your concept fits that, fine, if it doesn't, you'll fall short. By the same token, random gives you six stats that may each, independently, be game-breakingly-high, good, modest, average, low, bad, or character-wreckingly abysmal. The resulting array may or may not coincidentally work for your concept.

However, in the context of 'what are the benefits and drawbacks of each method', it is not true that the standard array lets players play whatever concept they want!

Clearly neither array nor random generation come anywhere near doing that.

That is why I took issue with your statement. It was misleading as it seemed, in context, that you were mentioning an objective truth about the benefits of point-buy for any player that uses it.

Point-buy does let everyone at the table play the concept they want, within the context of the party and the parameters of the game.

As has been pointed out, the parameters with random generation are 3-18 for each stat pre-racial. So, if you want to play a character who is very strong, very smart, and very charismatic, you can, if you happen to roll three high stats. If you happen to roll two moderately high stats, you can't. So you can't remotely 'play what you want' you can just make the best of what the dice give you. Even if you do get three good stats, someone else may end up being stronger/smarter/more-charismatic than you, in addition to being super-tough, say, possibly even by a large margin, undercutting your concept relative to the table.

Therefore, a statement like 'this method lets me play any concept I want' can only be objectively true if that method allows any combination of 3-18 for six scores to be generated by that method.

Not true, actually. Rather, it would have to let you play any combination of six scores that are /possible under that character generation system/, which both array and point-buy do, as a matter of course. The only question would be which of the two does it 'better' - and point-buy lets you buy the standard array, or quite a lot of alternatives, so it does so much better.

Building to concept isn't about picking a number out of thin air and hanging everything on it, though. It's all relative. Relative to what's possible in the game, with the method you're using, at the level you're playing - and relative to what everyone else at the table is playing. Random generations make it possible, however unlikely, to play the character you want within it's (very broad) range of possibilities. You just have to roll de-facto array that fits your concept when arranged to best advantage, and everyone else has to roll de-facto arrays and arrange them in such a way that they do not overshadow or undercut that concept in any way.

If you have a very simple concept like wanting to play a strong character, then putting the 15 from array or investing the max in point buy in STR does that for you. No one's going to have a 20 and make you look weak. Two of you can both play 'strong' characters if you want, you're just comparable in strength (for your respective races, anyway). That's everyone getting to play the /concept/ they want. Array is limited to fairly simple good-at-two, bad-at-one, concepts, but at least it's consistent & balanced, as well as fair.

Which does nothing for character concepts at first level

1st level falls pretty far short of a lot of heroic concepts, by definition. If the DM wants the party playing more awesome PCs from the start, he'll start at higher level and/or give a more generous array or more points to buy with or let you roll even more dice for each stat.

that can't be achieved due to stopping at 15 before racial modifiers. Further, since many concepts require very low stats, a 3 is an achievement under certain circumstances. At least as far as any number can be considered an achievement.

Having a concept and getting hung up on exact numbers are two very different things. Up-thread, all sides (there's clearly more than two!) were hurling & vehemently denying the accusation of getting hung-up on numbers, while, well, getting hung up on numbers, as you're doing, right now.

But not every concept, and you have no chance to ever achieve those concepts.

Every concept that's possible in the game and appropriate for the campaign, that (hopefully) won't undermine the next guy's concept.

Every concept can potentially be achieved played via rolling, even if some specific concepts don't work this time around.

Well, every concept that fits in the range of generation, that the DM doesn't reject as inappropriate for his campaign, and that isn't obviated, overshadowed or undercut by someone else's die rolls. But, that's 'has a random chance of playing any possible concept,' which is very, very different from 'can play the concept you want.'