D&D 5E Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats

[Sadras]

@Hussar makes an interesting point - we have at least 1 active thread about high-level play and how many of us complain that the CR is borked. Dropping starting ability points by 2 or even 4 points would certainly assist in correcting some (NOT ALL) of the issue, it certainly would be a step in the right direction, IMO.

 

[Lanefan]

But, the problem is, the 3d6 bell curve results in ludicrous settings, if we're actually going to follow that. Populations do not fall on a bell curve.

Actually, when you take out mitigating factors such as disease and deformities, they more or less do.

Your point about the 3-18 bell curve being too "loose", as in too high a chance for extremes, is more valid. To beat this, go with 5d4-2 for a tighter 3-18 curve, or even 7d3-3 for a very tight 4-18 curve (though it'll skew slightly high as the average is 11 rather than 10.5; you could always skew it slightly low instead by going -4 instead of -3 for a 3-17 curve averaging 10).

@Hussar makes an interesting point - we have at least 1 active thread about high-level play and how many of us complain that the CR is borked. Dropping starting ability points by 2 or even 4 points would certainly assist in correcting some (NOT ALL) of the issue, it certainly would be a step in the right direction, IMO.

The problem here isn't starting stats, it's the over-generous ASI's.

Do away with ASIs, or harshly rein them in, and you don't need to touch the starting stats.

Lanefan

 

[Maxperson]

Ok, I did mention this earlier that perhaps we have slightly different ideas of what is a Mary Sue character. Basically, in my mind, if you have nothing but bonuses, you're probably over powered for what I want to see at the table. Granted, 6 12's probably isn't an issue, but, if you have 3 sixteens and nothing lower than a 12, that's overpowered AFAIC.

A Mary Sue has no weaknesses. In 1e and 2e, a 12 is far from being a good stat. In 3e, a +1 wasn't worth much. Saves were geared so that a +1 in a weak save meant about a much as a chicken sandwhich in a weak save. All those untrained skills that used that +1 were similarly worthless, since you would still need a 14 on the roll to make even a 15 DC. 4e I don't know well. 5e takes even more away from stats and moves the power into class abilities and spells. A +1 in a stat your class doesn't use means very, very little. So even 3 16's and 3 12's would still not result in anything resembling a Mary Sue.

Now, if you've invented your own definition for it, so be it, but that renders it useless as a term to be applied in this thread.

But, you did ignore the other part of the argument. When an Ogre is Str 19, how is the 3-18 curve even remotely believable? When .5% of your human population is as strong as an ogre, and your base argument is that this is "realism", I'm having a problem seeing how that's plausible.

It's a lot less than .5%. 0.46 will have AN 18, but it might not be in strength. Since we're discussing averages, we have to multiply the number of commoners who have to roll stats by 6 in order to find one that has an 18 in strength. So 1 in 1296 will have a 19 strength after racial bonuses. That gives us 0.077 of the population being as strong as an average ogre. They still won't be as strong as an above average ogre, which would be pretty common in an ogre population.

 

[Maxperson]

And the rabbit hole gets even deeper when you realize that if you are presuming the 3-18 bell curve (modified by race) for PHB races, then why doesn't that apply to everything? After all, when's the last time you met a 9 Str ogre?

It does apply to everything. It's just that most DMs don't have the time or inclination to roll out stats for all the monsters they use, so they just grab the book average and go. I will say that I have met weak ogres in games before. Once in 1e and once in 3e, that I remember anyway. It's very rare, but it happens.

Imagine an AD&D group of 6 PC's, 3 of which have percentile strength. They are obliterating opponents WAY above their pay grade. And, I really believe, that there is a strong correlation between DM's who have issues with CR and die rolling chargen groups.

I'm going to have to imagine it, since despite playing a LOT(sometimes multiple weeks straight during the summers) over the 1e and 2e years where everyone rolled characters, I've never seen a group like that. I don't even recall a group with two of them.

Your idea of what stats people end up with when rolling seems to be very skewed by your bias.

 

[Maxperson]

But, the problem is, the 3d6 bell curve results in ludicrous settings, if we're actually going to follow that. Populations do not fall on a bell curve. There aren't equal numbers of Swartzenegger's as weaker people. There are FAR FAR more people at the bottom end of the pool than the top. Populations, when we talk about physical or mental capabilities, fall on a logarithmic scale, not a bell curve.

Think about it. With a +1 bonus for being human, anyone with a 17 or 18 base roll is now at the absolute peak of that stat (or close enough anyway). That means 4 in 216 people have either an 18 or 19 in any given stat. That's insane. In any town of 1000 humans, you'd have TWENTY Einsteins. It's ludicrous to think that that's true.

Less than 4. Not 20. You keep moving all of the high stat rolls into the single stat of your choice, instead of spreading them around like would happen in a population. First it was that they were all strong as ogres, now they are all smart as Einstein(assuming Einstein wasn't granted a favor that propelled him above 20 int). That's disingenuous. 4 out of 1296 people will have an 18 or 19 in Int.

 

[Sadras]

The problem here isn't starting stats, it's the over-generous ASI's.

Do away with ASIs, or harshly rein them in, and you don't need to touch the starting stats.

If ASI's are the problem, just make feats mandatory

 

[TwoSix]

It's a lot less than .5%. 0.46 will have AN 18, but it might not be in strength. Since we're discussing averages, we have to multiply the number of commoners who have to roll stats by 6 in order to find one that has an 18 in strength. So 1 in 1296 will have a 19 strength after racial bonuses. That gives us 0.077 of the population being as strong as an average ogre. They still won't be as strong as an above average ogre, which would be pretty common in an ogre population.

That's not true, either. Each stat roll is still independent, so the chance for any person to have an 18 Strength is 1 in 216. The chance that any commoner will have at least one 18 is 1 - ((215/216)^6), or 2.7% (about 1 in 36).

 

[Maxperson]

That's not true, either. Each stat roll is still independent, so the chance for any person to have an 18 Strength is 1 in 216. The chance that any commoner will have at least one 18 is 1 - ((215/216)^6), or 2.7% (about 1 in 36).

Wow! You're right. Tired morning math for the lose.

 

[ccs]

That's not true, either. Each stat roll is still independent, so the chance for any person to have an 18 Strength is 1 in 216. The chance that any commoner will have at least one 18 is 1 - ((215/216)^6), or 2.7% (about 1 in 36).

Reality says your math is wrong. At least as far as commoners (and all other NPCs).

See, most npcs stats are generated in one of the following ways:
1) DMs choice - whatevers needed for the story/moment.
2) Laziness - open book, use listed stat.
3) No stats at all. Unless it becomes really important, then see #s 1&2 above.

 

[TwoSix]

Reality says your math is wrong. At least as far as commoners (and all other NPCs).

See, most npcs stats are generated in one of the following ways:
1) DMs choice - whatevers needed for the story/moment.
2) Laziness - open book, use listed stat.
3) No stats at all. Unless it becomes really important, then see #s 1&2 above.

That's the way I do it, as well, but I'm still going to correct a math error if I see one.

Don't piggyback a rhetorical point onto a math discussion, that's just not kosher.