D&D 5E Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats

[Jacob Marley]

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 don't think we can really say whether or not a character is "cheesed out" by examining their stats. We also need to consider the context in which this character exists. Some campaigns are going to want characters with higher ability scores to balance against using tougher encounters.

For example, I run a sandbox. My players can - and do - stumble into encounter areas well above their capabilities. I want my characters to have higher stats in order to increase the chances of survival without me having to fudge (which I don't) monster rolls. If I were to require the standard array, for example, I'd be increasing the chances of failure and decreasing my player's overall enjoyment.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

And the beauty of rolling for stats is that every now and then you might get the chance to play Bond. James Bond.

Not so easy with point-buy or fixed-array...

 

[Lanefan]

I don't think we can really say whether or not a character is "cheesed out" by examining their stats. We also need to consider the context in which this character exists. Some campaigns are going to want characters with higher ability scores to balance against using tougher encounters.

To take this a step further - the context also includes the player, and whether that same player consistently seems to have over-the-top characters or whether this is a legitimate one-off or lucky set of rolls.

Beyond that, what did the player do with it after the good stat rolls? Did the player "build" the character like something from a CharOps board, or was it made with a more reasonable set of strengths and weaknesses?

So yes, there's more to cheesing out a character than just its base stats...but the base stats are a fine place to start.

Lanefan

 

[Oofta]

I don't think we can really say whether or not a character is "cheesed out" by examining their stats. We also need to consider the context in which this character exists. Some campaigns are going to want characters with higher ability scores to balance against using tougher encounters.

For example, I run a sandbox. My players can - and do - stumble into encounter areas well above their capabilities. I want my characters to have higher stats in order to increase the chances of survival without me having to fudge (which I don't) monster rolls. If I were to require the standard array, for example, I'd be increasing the chances of failure and decreasing my player's overall enjoyment.

Like I posted elsewhere I still don't have the proper term.

Would superhero stats be better? Playing a game with super high stats now and then can be fun (my preference is that if you do that everyone on the team has super high stats), so it's not meant in a derogatory fashion, sorry if that's the way it came off.

It can really throw off the CR/XP guidelines but as long as you (as DM) are OK with that, have fun.

 

[Oofta]

And the beauty of rolling for stats is that every now and then you might get the chance to play Bond. James Bond.

Not so easy with point-buy or fixed-array...

Unless you value giving all people at the table characters with similar options and just give them more than 27 points for a point buy and possibly extend the point buy to 18.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Unless you value giving all people at the table characters with similar options and just give them more than 27 points for a point buy and possibly extend the point buy to 18.

OK, you beat me too it.

If the campaign called for characters who were all-around paragons, you could choose an array or a level of point-buy to consistently deliver those kinds of characters to all the players, in a balanced way. By the same token, you could use a random generation method that tends to give such characters, most of the time.

 

[Jacob Marley]

Like I posted elsewhere I still don't have the proper term.

Would superhero stats be better? Playing a game with super high stats now and then can be fun (my preference is that if you do that everyone on the team has super high stats), so it's not meant in a derogatory fashion, sorry if that's the way it came off.

It can really throw off the CR/XP guidelines but as long as you (as DM) are OK with that, have fun.

I think the very nature of running a sandbox already throws off the CR/XP guidelines, regardless of how ability scores are generated. And I am ok with that!

 

[Maxperson]

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...

+1 bonuses even come close to fitting Mary Sue, Superhero, Lake Woebegone, yada yada. They are pretty meaningless. I spelled out the reasons why in my last post, but you cut that portion out.

 

[Caliban]

And the beauty of rolling for stats is that every now and then you might get the chance to play Bond. James Bond.

And everyone else gets to play your sidekick!

 

[Maxperson]

And everyone else gets to play your sidekick!

Not based on stats they won't. Character abilities, roleplaying and player ingenuity all have far greater impact on the game than stats do. People just let themselves get sidetracked by numbers.