D&D 5E Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats

[Tony Vargas]

I will say, this particular point of debate may say more about the gaming environment we play in, than anything about the rules or D&D traditions.

That can be a huge factor. Back in the fad years, there were barely BBS's let alone discussion forums. Before that, 'Zines. The community wasn't monolithic, each area, each convention, each group could have their own group-think, and have it for years if not decades unchallenged.

Most of my D&D play time for the last 20 years has been in one form of Organized Play environment or another (Living City, Living Greyhawk, Living Arcanis, Living Forgotten Realms (or whatever it was in 4e), Pathfinder Society, and most recently Adventure League).

That's what I've mainly been doing since 2010. For the 30 years before that, though, conventions, home games, and play in stores /before there was organized play/. I remember when they started up the RPGA, and I kinda ignored it. Before that 'tournaments' was the closest thing to what we now think of organized play.
Tried a tournament once.
Not fun.

They aren't even tradition for me, and I started playing D&D with the Red Box and soft plastic dice that you had to color the numbers in with crayon.

They were still using those in the new-fangled 'Red Box?' Huh.

 

[Lanefan]

I know OwlBears are part of 5E because they're on page 249 of the Monster Manual.

If someone asks why we have such a dumb monster I can lean in and in my best old man voice (really my regular voice nowadays) and say

"Well, sonny let me tell you about a land long ago and far away. The 70s." After waiting for their gasps of anticipation die down I continue, looking around to ensure no one else is watching. "See, back then there was this Gygax fella. He need some miniatures for his game and he came across some cheap plastic minis made in Japan."​

Did the Owlbear come from that set?

Fun fact: my wife, when she was a young girl (and before D&D was even invented) had that same set of minis. The only one that survived the lawnmower and the neighbours' pets is the one that inspired the Bulette; and we have it still, on the shelf with all the other - much larger - Bulettes.

Not even close. I want my keep, and followers. None of this "you have to earn it" BS or "RP". I have an old book that says that at 10th level I get a keep and followers.

Actually it was at or after 9th level, but you didn't just "get" it: you-as-character had to have the funds and time available to build it and you-as-player were expected to design it. The DM was bound by RAW to give you a map hex to work with, which you-as-character were responsible for clearing out of monsters etc. and this usually represented at least some minor adventuring if your hex was outside civilized lands. I'm going through this process right now (and probably will be for ages!) as a player, so I've had good reason to look into the details.

The bright side: if you built it, they would come - the followers were automatic.

Lan-"the keep/guild/temple/lab and followers idea really should be in all editions, and I see it as a mistake that it's not"-efan​

 

[Hussar]

Nope, 3d6 is the common ancestor's vestigial trait living on in all editions. 4e's the branch that went extinct, SC's might arise again through convergent evolution, though. ;P

Thing is, no, it's not. 3d6 appears nowhere in 5e.

Yes, the baseline for normal humans is a score of 10 in all stats. But, the DMG stats, flat out, that NPC'S, unless they are a threat to the PC's (or possibly an ally) DO NOT HAVE STATS. Full stop. End of story. You don't stat out NPC's. You give them descriptors likes "strong" or "pretty" and that's it.

The only reason there is an overlap is because 10 happens to be the center point on both scales - either 3-18 or 1-20. Sure, that overlap may have been done intentionally, but, since both scales are so different from each other, it's more just coincidental. "Normal" human may have been generated by 3d6 in 1e, but, again, that's because the scales tell us that any stat between 7 and 14 are, for all intents and purposes, the same. In 5e, that's simply not true. There's a HUGE gap between 7 and 14 in 5e. A +4 difference? In a system where most bonuses are single digit at the most? That's enormous.

5e rejects earlier editions flat out by stating, in no uncertain terms, that NPC's DO NOT HAVE STATS. Only NPC's that might engage (either with or against) the PC's need stats at all. Otherwise, they don't.

This is completely contrary to AD&D or 3e. It's actually perfectly dovetailing with 4e.

Claims that 5e is following an earlier tradition are ignoring the actual text.

 

[Hussar]

I'm also kinda curious. The claim is that NPC's are based on the 3d6 curve. But, that only applies to humans in AD&D. After all, with the racial minimums for demi-humans, they certainly weren't on any 3d6 curve.

 

[Maxperson]

Class abilities were all-important in 1e. Want to pick a lock? You better be a Thief. But if you are, you can't wear plate, but if you're a fighter, you can, and your AC isn't much beyond the armor on your back.

Sure, the thief tried to pick the lock, then much more often than not everyone took turns trying to bash open the door with brute strength, the burly fighter succeeding much more often than the thief or anyone else did. Assuming the thief was a dwarf, it still took until at least 6th level before he had a 50/50 shot. A fighter with a 16 strength had that kind of success at 1st level, maybe even better than that if he had 18/51 or higher strength. If the fighter had an 18/00 strength, the thief would have to be about 12th level to catch up. Gauntlets of ogre power were not uncommon, so the fighter would be likely to have one by 6th level, and a belt of giant strength by 12th. Basically the thief was unlikely to ever be as good with his skill at opening doors as the fighter with his strength.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, when you create an NPC as a PC you use the race stats. Take it farther....the races in the PHB are for PCs or Special NPCs thus they are the upper % of the race. You only need to use the racial stat bonuses when you build an NPC as a PC.

There's no such thing as special NPCs. There is also no language in the PHB to indicate that these "special" NPCs are the only type NPC that would get racial bonuses, but there is language all over the place indicating that all NPCs get them.

 

[Maxperson]

It's definitely assumed. 5e is clearly written for and aimed at the fan base as it existed when it was being developed.

That doesn't make it impossible for new players to figure it out, not ideal, but not impossible - but, at the same time, it means that a new player learning 5e, even somehow, in a vacuum without any reference to past editions, will emerge with quite a lot of the same general impressions, feelings, & assumptions about the game as someone who started with 3e or earlier.

I don't think past knowledge is assumed, but I do think that it helps with understanding 5e. It's like the difference between a mechanic owning a car and a layman owning a car. The car will work just fine for both, but the mechanic is going to have a greater understanding of why the car does what it does and where in the past each change or lack of change came from.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, the baseline for normal humans is a score of 10 in all stats. But, the DMG stats, flat out, that NPC'S, unless they are a threat to the PC's (or possibly an ally) DO NOT HAVE STATS. Full stop. End of story. You don't stat out NPC's. You give them descriptors likes "strong" or "pretty" and that's it.

The DMG states that they all have stats. The three main methods for creating NPCs ALL involve them having stats. Your little blurb at the beginning of the section changes nothing. You don't have to roll to give them stats using the three main methods.

 

[Hussar]

The DMG states that they all have stats. The three main methods for creating NPCs ALL involve them having stats. Your little blurb at the beginning of the section changes nothing. You don't have to roll to give them stats using the three main methods.

Only if you ignore the rest of that page and then turn over to the next page when they start talking about special NPC's. But, yeah, you're more interested in cherry picking quotes than actual discussion.

How do you explain the chart describing NPC characteristics in plain English terms rather than numbers then? What does "strong" actually mean if all NPC's MUST have stats?

 

[Maxperson]

Only if you ignore the rest of that page and then turn over to the next page when they start talking about special NPC's. But, yeah, you're more interested in cherry picking quotes than actual discussion.

How do you explain the chart describing NPC characteristics in plain English terms rather than numbers then? What does "strong" actually mean if all NPC's MUST have stats?

No. It's BEFORE any talk of "special" NPCs. It's generically entitled "NPC Statistics", not "Special NPC Statistics". By the way, where is the phrase "special NPC"? I don't see it.