D&D 5E Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats

Oofta

Legend
I suspect the majority of D&Ders and especially of DMs are drawn from the more-experienced pool, be it long-time or returning. And, it only takes one experienced DM to introduce a half-dozen new players.
Per session. ;)

Most people in my gaming group(s) started with 3.5 or later. We've introduced several new players to the game as well. I'm probably the only one that played 1E, many of my players were not even born when 1E was in publication.

I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of the rules and don't care to take the 1E books off the shelf to look at rules. Heck, I have a hard time remembering what I ate for breakfast this morning much less what the rules were back in the 20th century.


The idea that 1E has any impact on the current game sounds like rambling at the Old Folk Home for Gamers to me ... "I remember back in the day when we rolled 3d6 for ability scores, and we liked it! None of that namby-pamby fancy stuff! And we had to walk to the game up hill. In the snow. Both ways. Fighting off the orcs with our spiral ring notebooks!"

Wait ... what were we talking about again? :confused:
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Hussar

Legend
I proved that idea false, or at the very least incredibly misleading many pages ago. In 1e stat ranges had other influences than pure combat pluses that got better or worse within the range you are claiming to be normal and without bonus. Increasing or decreases survival/system shock is in fact a bonus, just a different sort of bonus. Another example is that a strength of 12 gets a +100 weight allowance bonus. In 1e a normal stat was 10-11 and then bonuses and penalties started happening.

Except that there is. That 14 has +200 weight allowance bonus over the 8 and 7% chance to bend a freaking bar or lift a gate, where the 8 only has a 1% chance.

Yup, I can carry 20 more pounds and I have a 1 in 20 chance more of lifting a gate.

Like I said, pretty much identical. Particularly when you start comparing to the changes AFTER 14.

Basically, you're mixing Metric and Imperial measurements. Models that work in one system don't necessarily give you the same results in another system. As was mentioned earlier, the 3-18 range actually isn't the default in 5e, it's 1-18. There is nothing to indicate that the lowest stat for NPC's isn't 1.

Which makes sense, in a way. If the highest end of the range is +5, then, the lowest end of the range should be -5. Which really does throw the whole thing out of whack anyway.

Personally, I'm just going to follow the DMG advice and presume that NPC's have no stats. Boom, done, end of problem.

I like using the simplest solutions.
 
Last edited:


Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Yup, I can carry 20 more pounds and I have a 1 in 20 chance more of lifting a gate.

Like I said, pretty much identical. Particularly when you start comparing to the changes AFTER 14.
Wow. Going from a 0 in 20 chance to bend steel with your bare hands and life a castle portcullis to a 1 in 20 chance is pretty much identical. What does it take to be significant, the ability to bench press the whole castle?

Basically, you're mixing Metric and Imperial measurements. Models that work in one system don't necessarily give you the same results in another system. As was mentioned earlier, the 3-18 range actually isn't the default in 5e, it's 1-18. There is nothing to indicate that the lowest stat for NPC's isn't 1.
Wrong. The 3-18 stat range for rolling is such an indication. What there's no indication of is that NPCs can have a 1.

Personally, I'm just going to follow the DMG advice and presume that NPC's have no stats. Boom, done, end of problem.
Except the 5e DMG specifically presumes that they DO have stats. It just doesn't presume that they need to be rolled unless it poses a threat.
 
Last edited:

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
The highest stat range for NPC's is 18 not 20. 20 is for PC or special NPCs. So the range of -4 to +4 is 3-18.

I don't know about that. The racial bonuses are not specifically said to be for PCs, and in fact the fluff portions indicate that the race sections are talking about the entirety of those races, which would include NPCs.
 



Hussar

Legend
The highest stat range for NPC's is 18 not 20. 20 is for PC or special NPCs. So the range of -4 to +4 is 3-18.

Where is that stated?

Wow. Going from a 0 in 20 chance to bend steel with your bare hands and life a castle portcullis to a 1 in 20 chance is pretty much identical. What does it take to be significant, the ability to bench press the whole castle?

Wrong. The 3-18 stat range for rolling is such an indication. What there's no indication of is that NPCs can have a 1.

Except the 5e DMG specifically presumes that they DO have stats. It just doesn't presume that they need to be rolled unless it poses a threat.

Actually it's going from 1 in 100 to 1 in 20. Again, not a huge change. And aren't you the one who argued that stats in 5e are so insignificant that it doesn't really matter if one character is lower than another?

And, nope. The DMG specifically presumes that they DON'T have stats. Right there in the first paragraph on creating NPC's. Only NPC's that are a threat to PC's need stats. In fact it suggests simply using descriptors, rather than actually having stats.
 


Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
The PHB refers to PCs as either characters or adventurers, so my interpretation of pg 173 is that adventurers is refering to PCs not normal NPCs who happen to be adventurers.

NPCs have been able to be adventurers for all prior editions to date. Actually, looking at the NPC section on page 89 of the PHB, it even gives having adventured years ago as one possible occupation/history for NPCs and page 93 has a paragraph on Adventurer NPCs, so they can clearly be adventurers in 5e as well. The section on page 93 instructs the DM to build them via player handbook rules, which would include racial bonuses and stats of up to 20.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top