D&D 5E Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats

[ccs]

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

ASIs aren't the problem. It's the pitifully low point where you start getting bonuses in the 1st place. "Yay! I got 12, I get a +1!"
Additionally, with the standard array & PB the designers pretty much ensured players are insulated from -modifiers. The worst you'll get is a -1. But the best you'll get (after race bonus)? +4.

 

[Sadras]

ASIs aren't the problem. It's the pitifully low point where you start getting bonuses in the 1st place. "Yay! I got 12, I get a +1!"
Additionally, with the standard array & PB the designers pretty much ensured players are insulated from -modifiers. The worst you'll get is a -1. But the best you'll get (after race bonus)? +4.

I agree with you.
In another thread recently, which I'm too tired to look for, I did suggest a flatter ability modifier range and rather increase the modifier on proficiency. My pet peeve is that all ability scores really have no benefits at odd numbers (except for STR if you're using encumbrance).

 

[Oofta]

ASIs aren't the problem. It's the pitifully low point where you start getting bonuses in the 1st place. "Yay! I got 12, I get a +1!"
Additionally, with the standard array & PB the designers pretty much ensured players are insulated from -modifiers. The worst you'll get is a -1. But the best you'll get (after race bonus)? +4.

And yet some people appear to be claiming that an entire character concept cannot be realized because their tertiary stat gives them "only" a +1.

But I don't see a reason to change the entire game. A +1 just indicates you'r a little better than average. A lot of people are a little better than average at a couple of things, while very few people are significantly better than average at all things. Unless of course you are Bond. James Bond.

 

[Oofta]

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.

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.

So you have one definition of Mary Sue. Congratulations. Last time I checked there is no one definition - just someone that is overly-competent in everything. Someone with all pluses and no negatives would qualify IMHO.

But in any case, it's kind of a horrible shortcut because it's really a misogynistic term meaning that fiction can't have powerful female characters as defined here.

I can't think of a better term for it though. Lake Woebegone character? A Superhero character? Dunno. But if someone is above average in every imaginable stat, and near the top of human potential in more than one stat at first level? Yeah, that's a cheesed out character*.

*I know that doesn't really fit either...

 

[Tony Vargas]

So you have one definition of Mary Sue. Congratulations. Last time I checked there is no one definition

AFAIK, it's "obnoxious self-insertion character in a fan fic."

 

[Caliban]

AFAIK, it's "obnoxious self-insertion character in a fan fic."

That's only the original definition, from the same era that gave us the term "Slashfic". The language has evolved since then, and it has become a general term for "character I don't like for undisclosed reasons". The "undisclosed reasons" usually amount to them being "too successful with little or no effort on their part".

And now, apparently, it is being applied to theoretical PC's in D&D who start off with inflated stats.

 

[TwoSix]

AFAIK, it's "obnoxious self-insertion character in a fan fic."

That was the original definition; it's become used more in the past few years to refer to any character, usually the protagonist, who's either omni-competent or always has some kind of fallback power, usually based on their origin story. TVtropes has a good summary of how messy the use of the term can be.

 

[Caliban]

So you have one definition of Mary Sue. Congratulations. Last time I checked there is no one definition - just someone that is overly-competent in everything. Someone with all pluses and no negatives would qualify IMHO.

But in any case, it's kind of a horrible shortcut because it's really a misogynistic term meaning that fiction can't have powerful female characters as defined here.

I can't think of a better term for it though. Lake Woebegone character? A Superhero character? Dunno. But if someone is above average in every imaginable stat, and near the top of human potential in more than one stat at first level? Yeah, that's a cheesed out character*.

*I know that doesn't really fit either...

I prefer the term "ubermensch" but it's never really caught on.

 

[Tony Vargas]

That's only the original definition, from the same era that gave us the term "Slashfic".

The original definition /is/ the definition.

The language has evolved since then

Bah. Language doesn't 'evolve,' it's just debased by the younger generation....
::shakes cane::
::encloses imaginary actions in double ':'s and uses '//' to indicate italics, like he's still posting on UseNet::

 

[TwoSix]

The original definition /is/ the definition. Bah. Language doesn't 'evolve,' it's just debased by the younger generation....
::shakes cane::
::encloses imaginary actions in double ':'s and uses '//' to indicate italics, like he's still posting on UseNet::

You should probably post this in the Survivor Settings thread instead, it seems to be pretty thick with grog.