D&D 5E Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats

[Tony Vargas]

I'm assuming the standard dictionary definition of realism,

'Realism's it's own thing, practically jargon, if not a well-defined term, in the RPG hobby.

"2. the quality or fact of representing a person, thing, or situation accurately or in a way that is true to life". I feel like people are using the word realistic to describe that sort of "true-to-life-ness". I'm using immersion, on the other hand, to describe a player's strong sense of identification with his or her character which often depends on making decisions from the character's point of view. It doesn't necessarily rely on realism.

Nod, like I said, I understand the distinction, but I don't find it meaningful.

So here's a concept absolutely nobody will like but I'm going to chuck it in here anyway, just for fun:

Each character rolls for its point-buy total!

Standard: 2d6 + 20. Range 22-32, average 27.

Tighter bell curve on that? 3d4 + 20. Range 23-32, average 27.5.

Flat-line it? 1d10 + 22. Range 23-32, average 27.5.

The hard variable after the '+' could of course be adjusted for an overall higher or lower-range campaign.

Have fun!

Lanefan

A few pages back we were talking hybrid systems, that'd be one. It combines a significant strength of random generation - the possibility of playing a superior character - with a significant strength of point-buy - the freedom to build to the character concept you have in mind.

 

[Maxperson]

Variations on any of the three methods can deliver whatever range of scores the DM desires. 3-18 may very well /not/ be desirable for a given campaign, so random can be adjusted to weight heavily in one direction (4d6k3), use entirely different dice (3d4+6), or set floors or ceilings requiring a re-roll. Similarly, a standard Array can consist of any 6 scores the DM desires. Similarly, point-buy can have any upper or lower limits set and any variations on cost to get there.

Sure, you can house rule anything you want. When I post, though, I'm posting from the position of a RAW discussion. If we're going to throw house rules in with RAW, there's little point in discussing the rules at all. The answer is pretty much always, "Do what you want and have fun!"

I guess, here, you're using 'power gaming' to mean 'wanting to play a strictly superior character to the next guy.' I disapprove of that use of the term, preferring to think of a power-gamer like a power-user, someone with great familiarity with a system who can get more utility out of it, to the benefit of all involved. But, using the crass, desire-for-superiority sense, I have to disagree. It's not a guarantee, but the possibility of playing a strictly superior character (even before applying system mastery) that makes random desirable to such a player. The guarantee comes with array & point-buy, and it's the guarantee that /no one/ at the table will have a strictly superior or inferior character, based on stats, alone. If you feel you can only enjoy the game if you play a strictly-superior character, then you simply won't get to enjoy the game, with point-buy or array, /ever/ - but, with random generation, you have a chance of getting what you want, some of the time, you just have to accept that others may get it, instead.
It's really just a campaign-long variation on the practice of spot-light balance that 5e already uses to spread the fun around to players who chose different classes, and a legitimate strength of random generation.

Just wanting to play a superior character is optimizing. Nothing wrong with that. A power gamer to me is someone who wants to break the game and win, hur hur! Or who wants the character to be optimized in order to hog the spotlight and engage in other inappropriate behaviors.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Sure, you can house rule anything you want. When I post, though, I'm posting from the position of a RAW discussion.

Then you can't claim any sort of realism from the RAW default method, since it includes both arranging your stats, and taking the standard array.

Also, you're playing 5e wrong, because it's "rulings-not-rules" not "RAW." ;P

If we're going to throw house rules in with RAW, there's little point in discussing the rules at all. The answer is pretty much always, "Do what you want and have fun!"

That is, indeed, the ultimate answer, but it's not the point of the discussion to get there or avoid getting there. Rather, we've looked deeply at the advantages & disadvantages of different chargen methods, and, IMHO, we've identified some that hold regardless of little variations like how many or what dice you roll in a random method, or how many points you get in a build method.

Just wanting to play a superior character is optimizing.

Optimizing is a process - a superior character is a result. Rolling straight 18s gives you a superior character, no optimization required. Building 3.5 chain-tripper fighter is an optimization exercise, but still results in a still-barely-relevant character alongside an indifferently optimized Tier 1 caster in that edition. If you want a superior character you an acquire and apply system mastery to that end (and hope you're the greatest system-master at the table) - or you can sign up for a game that uses random generation and hope to get the best rolls at the table.

 

[Oofta]

The bolded part is the key here. We aren't talking about the normal range when we discuss the most handicapped people in the world. Something abnormal has happened to them, so 0-2 are acceptable stats to model that. The reason that's not in the PHB is because people who are that handicapped can't be adventurers.

A 3 intelligence is the same as a mastiff. I think anyone with the intelligence of a dog would be considered mentally handicapped.

I would even say that someone that has a hard time counting to 10 and has limited use of language would also be considered mentally handicapped. We know what level of intelligence that means to the developers because they gave a 5 intelligence to ogres.

I've done it once and then owned up to it immediately, because I wasn't serious. If I felt like it, I could go back and find multiple examples of you doing it to me without a peep from you.

You stated

And yet it's still more realistic than point buy or arrays, where nobody in the entire world can be below an 8!!

No one on this forum as stated that "nobody in the entire world can be below an 8" other than you.

I was simply pointing out that what you were stating was completely fabricated.

EDIT: clarified - ogres have a 5 int.

 

[Hriston]

It has been mentioned that the 'd-average' (with six sides numbered 2,3,3,4,4,5) were the way that NPCs were generated, as if this somehow disproved the '3d6 in order' concept. But it doesn't.

First, '3d-average' was not a refutation or replacement of '3d6 in order', it was just a cheaty way to get 'average' scores in exactly the same way that 4d6k3 was a cheaty way to get 'better' scores; each was 'average' or 'better' compared to the background assumption of the 3d6 bell curve.

Hold on! If 3d-averaging was the way to determine the scores of the average person then why is it being compared to 3d6? What does 3d6 even mean at that point?

Second, the very same section that mentions '3d-average' for NPCs says that you roll '3d-average' for the scores that are not relevant to the NPC's role, but roll 3d6 for stats that matter, or even use a PC stat generation method (like 4d6k3) for stats that are crucial to the role of that NPC.

You're misreading that. Maybe you don't know what's meant by 'general characters', also known as 0-level NPCs. These are the characters that make up the majority of the world's population in the form of commoners, peasants, craftsmen, laborers, artisans, traders, mercenaries, men-at-arms, sages, and any of the 'normal' men found in the Monster Manual: bandits, berserkers, buccaneers, cavemen, dervishes, merchants, and pilgrims. These are the type of character that have all six of their ability scores generated by 3d-averaging.

Now on to 'special characters', the part you seem especially confused about. These are classed NPCs, which means they have a character class just like a PC! For these characters, 3d6 (not averaging!) is used for all ability scores except for the primary ability of their class. Their primary abilities are generated by one of the PC ability score generation methods (I-IV) or the alternate method given.

So you can see that with the publication of the DMG in 1979, 3d6 was relegated to methods II-IV of PC ability score generation in which it was rolled multiple times to provide better results to choose from, and to rolling the non-primary ability scores of classed NPCs.

 

[Maxperson]

Then you can't claim any sort of realism from the RAW default method, since it includes both arranging your stats, and taking the standard array.

I certainly can. Even arranging stats is more realistic than the array, since the stats you get are not controlled. Arranging stats is less realistic than rolling straight down, though. Realism is a graded thing.

Also, you're playing 5e wrong, because it's "rulings-not-rules" not "RAW." ;P

Not so! Rulings over rules is not about house rules exactly. It's about making rulings about the vague aspects of 5e. It's written so that the DM will have to make lots of rulings and those rulings are higher than rules.

Optimizing is a process - a superior character is a result. Rolling straight 18s gives you a superior character, no optimization required. Building 3.5 chain-tripper fighter is an optimization exercise, but still results in a still-barely-relevant character alongside an indifferently optimized Tier 1 caster in that edition. If you want a superior character you an acquire and apply system mastery to that end (and hope you're the greatest system-master at the table) - or you can sign up for a game that uses random generation and hope to get the best rolls at the table.

In any case, being an asshat is what makes someone a power gamer to me.

 

[Maxperson]

A 3 intelligence is the same as a mastiff. I think anyone with the intelligence of a dog would be considered mentally handicapped.

There are many people more mentally deficient than dogs.

No one on this forum as stated that "nobody in the entire world can be below an 8" other than you.

I was simply pointing out that what you were stating was completely fabricated.

EDIT: clarified - ogres have a 5 int.

Ogres aren't people. We're discussing PCs using point buy and the PC array, and NPCs using the all 10's arrays. Context is your friend. Learn to use it and you won't make blunders like this.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Arranging stats is less realistic than rolling straight down, though. Realism is a graded thing.

That's the point, yes. The 'realism' claim for the default method is very weak, but it's stronger for random generation if we consider variations on the method, like roll-in-order, and that gives us a clearer picture.

Not so! Rulings over rules is not about house rules exactly.

"Rulings not Rules," optional rules, variants, house-rules, the system is just a starting point, etc - it's all wrapped up in 5e DM Empowerment, and RAW isn't. RAW is a 3e meme. It can be refrigerated or thoroughly cooked after opening, but shouldn't be used in 5e, regardless. ;P

 

[Maxperson]

"Rulings not Rules," optional rules, variants, house-rules, the system is just a starting point, etc - it's all wrapped up in 5e DM Empowerment, and RAW isn't. RAW is a 3e meme. It can be refrigerated or thoroughly cooked after opening, but shouldn't be used in 5e, regardless. ;P

It should be used, for the bolded portion and to discuss what you think the rules mean. Pure house rules, though, those still don't add much of value to a discussion like this. If you're going to allow them in with the same weight as the written rules, they do more to shut down a conversation than to encourage it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It should be used, for the bolded portion and to discuss what you think the rules mean.

We passed 'starting point' many, many pages back.

Pure house rules, though...

I wouldn't consider 'try rolling 4d6 in order instead of arranging,' or 'using a different total for point buy' to be "pure house rules" they're just fairly minor variations that showcase the strengths of there respective methods, or illustrate how a supposed 'weakness' is easily addressed.

Really, the default method is a hybrid of random and array that compromises the strengths of random significantly. It's not a great poster-boy for that type of method.

 

[Maxperson]

We passed 'starting point' many, many pages back.

Truer words haven't been said.

I wouldn't consider 'try rolling 4d6 in order instead of arranging,' or 'using a different total for point buy' to be "pure house rules" they're just fairly minor variations that showcase the strengths of there respective methods, or illustrate how a supposed 'weakness' is easily addressed.

To me, going beyond the rules is a house rule. It may not be pure in the sense that it's 100% house rule, but it's still not conducive to having a discussion. The opposite, really.

 

[Hriston]

Sure you are. By picking the array, you have picked 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8.

You didn't decide what numbers make up the standard array. The designers of D&D did that, not you.

And yet you can't just pick any other set of numbers.

Not if you're taking the standard array, no. That isn't how the standard array works.

You are picking the numbers you end up with. That there is a more variety makes it more realistic than arrays, but less realistic than rolling.

Variety adds to realism. I'll give you that.

 

[Maxperson]

You didn't decide what numbers make up the standard array. The designers of D&D did that, not you.

Just because I pick the number 5, doesn't mean you also can't pick the number 5. You have picked every number in that array. That they were the only ones to pick from, or that someone else also picked them changes nothing.

 

[Harzel]

And to be fair, in point-buy your choice is constrained to one of 65 possible combinations.

Is it really that few? How did you come up with that? Did you just enumerate them? I can sort of see how to create a generalized recursive formula to calculate it, but a closed form solution is not immediately apparent to me. It's a weird kind of bin-packing problem, though, so maybe there isn't one.

I'm not really doubting you, I'm just slightly surprised.

 

[Oofta]

Is it really that few? How did you come up with that? Did you just enumerate them? I can sort of see how to create a generalized recursive formula to calculate it, but a closed form solution is not immediately apparent to me. It's a weird kind of bin-packing problem, though, so maybe there isn't one.

I'm not really doubting you, I'm just slightly surprised.

Yes

13, 13, 13, 12, 12, 12
13, 13, 13, 13, 12, 11
13, 13, 13, 13, 13, 10
14, 12, 12, 12, 12, 12
14, 13, 12, 12, 12, 11
14, 13, 13, 12, 11, 11
14, 13, 13, 12, 12, 10
14, 13, 13, 13, 11, 10
14, 13, 13, 13, 12, 9
14, 13, 13, 13, 13, 8
14, 14, 12, 11, 11, 11
14, 14, 12, 12, 11, 10
14, 14, 12, 12, 12, 9
14, 14, 13, 11, 11, 10
14, 14, 13, 12, 10, 10
14, 14, 13, 12, 11, 9
14, 14, 13, 12, 12, 8
14, 14, 13, 13, 10, 9
14, 14, 13, 13, 11, 8
14, 14, 14, 10, 10, 10
14, 14, 14, 11, 10, 9
14, 14, 14, 11, 11, 8
14, 14, 14, 12, 9, 9
14, 14, 14, 12, 10, 8
14, 14, 14, 13, 9, 8
15, 12, 12, 12, 11, 11
15, 12, 12, 12, 12, 10
15, 13, 12, 11, 11, 11
15, 13, 12, 12, 11, 10
15, 13, 12, 12, 12, 9
15, 13, 13, 11, 11, 10
15, 13, 13, 12, 10, 10
15, 13, 13, 12, 11, 9
15, 13, 13, 12, 12, 8
15, 13, 13, 13, 10, 9
15, 13, 13, 13, 11, 8
15, 14, 11, 11, 11, 10
15, 14, 12, 11, 10, 10
15, 14, 12, 11, 11, 9
15, 14, 12, 12, 10, 9
15, 14, 12, 12, 11, 8
15, 14, 13, 10, 10, 10
15, 14, 13, 11, 10, 9
15, 14, 13, 11, 11, 8
15, 14, 13, 12, 9, 9
15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8
15, 14, 13, 13, 9, 8
15, 14, 14, 10, 9, 9
15, 14, 14, 10, 10, 8
15, 14, 14, 11, 9, 8
15, 14, 14, 12, 8, 8
15, 15, 11, 10, 10, 10
15, 15, 11, 11, 10, 9
15, 15, 11, 11, 11, 8
15, 15, 12, 10, 10, 9
15, 15, 12, 11, 9, 9
15, 15, 12, 11, 10, 8
15, 15, 12, 12, 9, 8
15, 15, 13, 10, 9, 9
15, 15, 13, 10, 10, 8
15, 15, 13, 11, 9, 8
15, 15, 13, 12, 8, 8
15, 15, 14, 9, 9, 8
15, 15, 14, 10, 8, 8
15, 15, 15, 8, 8, 8

 

[Hriston]

Here's the table I made to figure it out. I don't think I missed any. My method was to start with the highest numbers I could and work my way down. I was surprised it was only that many too.





edit: Ninja'd by Oofta

 

[Oofta]

Here's the table I made to figure it out. I don't think I missed any. My method was to start with the highest numbers I could and work my way down. I was surprised it was only that many too.


edit: Ninja'd by Oofta

Yours is much prettier.

 

[Hriston]

Just because I pick the number 5, doesn't mean you also can't pick the number 5. You have picked every number in that array. That they were the only ones to pick from, or that someone else also picked them changes nothing.

Look, I'm not going to buy that you independently came up with the standard array all on your own.

 

[Maxperson]

Look, I'm not going to buy that you independently came up with the standard array all on your own.

Good, because I don't need to sell that. If I pick the standard array, I have picked those numbers. They are impossible to place on my sheet without picking them.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Is it really that few? .

65 is 64 more arrays to choose from before arranging than standard array or random give you.