D&D 5E Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats

[Arial Black]

Rolling 3d6 to generate ability scores for NPCs? Not in any 5E book.

No-one is saying it is!

What we are saying is that the 3d6 bell curve for the general population is the assumed model of that population. Whether or not any 5E (or even 1E) player actually rolls 3d6 is not the issue! The issue is that the ability scores are judged against that bell curve, now and always, unless the writers specifically change it.

And they won't change it! They like it! It is so ingrained in them and in every iteration of D&D that it even operates on a subconscious level, so that every single piece of evidence that is written down in 5E remains consistent with that assumption.

 

[Arial Black]

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.

This is an absurd misunderstanding. Possibly even a deliberate misunderstanding.

Just because you are not obliged to roll the stats of every single NPC if their stats aren't going to get used in the story, this in no way means that such NPCs don't HAVE Str/Dex/Con/Int/Wis/Cha scores!

If they didn't have any Str they wouldn't be able to move. Without Intelligence they wouldn't be able to speak.

Just because you can't be bothered to roll those stats doesn't mean that the NPC doesn't have stats!

You don't stat out NPC's. You give them descriptors likes "strong" or "pretty" and that's it.

This is like an ostrich sticking its head in the sand. If you can't see them then they're not really there!

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

Quote the 5E text which says that the general population is not assumed to be consistent with the 3d6 bell curve.

It's not a fair task actually, because no book is going to do that. But what they would do, if they wanted to change that assumption, is tell us what the new assumption is.

And yet again, "Can't be bothered to put numbers on it" is not taking away any assumptions about the numbers they have when you can be bothered!

 

[Arial Black]

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.

I remember that table!

And what was the first step, before referencing that table?

That's right! Roll those dice! Then adjust for race. Then use the table to make adjustments.

 

[Oofta]

No-one is saying it is!

What we are saying is that the 3d6 bell curve for the general population is the assumed model of that population. Whether or not any 5E (or even 1E) player actually rolls 3d6 is not the issue! The issue is that the ability scores are judged against that bell curve, now and always, unless the writers specifically change it.

And they won't change it! They like it! It is so ingrained in them and in every iteration of D&D that it even operates on a subconscious level, so that every single piece of evidence that is written down in 5E remains consistent with that assumption.

Only if you believe that the rules from previous edition still apply to the current edition unless specifically overwritten. I don't, it's not a written assumption anywhere.

If they liked it so much, they would have put a ring on it included it in the current rules.

 

[Arial Black]

it's not a written assumption anywhere.

If it was written then it wouldn't be an assumption!

Is that the cause of this debate? That you think we are saying that the 5E 'RULE' is that NPCs are rolled on 3d6?

No. We are saying that the rules that ARE there assume that 3d6 bell curve as the context in which the scores of any 5E creature are judged.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Just because you are not obliged to roll the stats of every single NPC if their stats aren't going to get used in the story, this in no way means that such NPCs don't HAVE Str/Dex/Con/Int/Wis/Cha scores!

It means they don't exist, in a sense. Tree-falling-in-the-forest stuff, only, hey, if I say, there's a city off on this edge of the map, and the PCs never go there, then, in a sense, the hypothetical inhabitants 'have not stats.' They also have no names, and, in essence, don't exist. Afterall, they don't exist, anyway, even if the party did visit the city, and I did determine stats for a few of 'em.

Quote the 5E text which says that the general population is not assumed to be consistent with the 3d6 bell curve.

It's not a fair task actually, because no book is going to do that. But what they would do, if they wanted to change that assumption, is tell us what the new assumption is.

Exactly, there's no population demographics given with respect to stats. The closest thing is the vague implication of straight-10 commoners and more capable NPCs of other sorts, and it's not inconsistent with the bell curve.

Only if you believe that the rules from previous edition still apply to the current edition unless specifically overwritten. I don't, it's not a written assumption anywhere.

If they liked it so much, they included it in the current rules.

Thing is, not everyone liked every bit of every past edition, so leaving vast swaths of assumptions unstated left room for even the weirder preconceptions.

Hps, for instance. If they'd come down hard on a hp interpretation, it'd've been Edition-War II.

 

[Oofta]

If it was written then it wouldn't be an assumption!

Is that the cause of this debate? That you think we are saying that the 5E 'RULE' is that NPCs are rolled on 3d6?

No. We are saying that the rules that ARE there assume that 3d6 bell curve as the context in which the scores of any 5E creature are judged.

So this is going nowhere, endless loop style.

Step 1: I want 3d6 and it's associated bell curve to be important because when I was a youngster it was important*.
Step 2: It's not part of the current rules. The developers of 5E included some things (the range of ability scores, Owlbears), the 3d6 bell curve of ability scores for general population was not included.
Step 3: GOTO Step 1.


*And tell those darn kids to get off my lawn!

 

[Caliban]

If it was written then it wouldn't be an assumption!

Is that the cause of this debate? That you think we are saying that the 5E 'RULE' is that NPCs are rolled on 3d6?

No. We are saying that the rules that ARE there assume that 3d6 bell curve as the context in which the scores of any 5E creature are judged.

I shudder to think what context we are being judged in for participating in this "debate".

 

[Yardiff]

I already did. The entire race section talks about the whole race and then gives the bonuses for the race. If the entire race consists of PCs, the entire race gets the bonuses. If the entire race consists of PCs and NPCs, then NPCs get the bonuses. It's on you at this point to prove that the language involving the entire races doesn't qualify NPCs to get the bonuses, and "Because it's the PHB" doesn't cut it as proof.

All you did was state your opinion not point to any pg/text.

This is from the PHB and the PHB ONLY deals with building PCs.

ABILITY SCORE INCREASE
Every race increases one or more of a character's ability scores.

The only time this would come about in the DMG is when you build an NPC as a PC.

You read into lots of stuff one way and I read into them another way but we're both 'reading into' things.

 

[Maxperson]

You look at NPCs and see numbers. Everything seems to boil down to a number to you. It doesn't need to. I only use specific numbers when I need them for game mechanics.

It's a different approach. I envision a fantasy world first with mechanical implementation to enable interaction with that world. I get the impression you look at everything as a game first - numbers, ability scores, so on first and then add the trappings of a fantasy world on top. It's like a game of Risk with more complexity and flexibility.

That's because you don't bother to read or understand what people write, or you wouldn't say that. First, I've already said how quick NPCs don't have stats and how I don't bother to roll or set them. Recently, too, so you have no excuse. Second, you're making a mistake in your assumptions. Unless I say, "I do X", don't ever assume that what I'm arguing is what I'm doing. I argue what the rules say all the time when I do things differently myself. I house rule the hell out of my games.