D&D 5E Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats

[Maxperson]

All the types that are possible for that campaign. Random generation also can't let you play a character that's out of bounds for the campaign. That's just a limitation no all methods.

I'm talking RAW here, not home brew/house rule.

It's a different range, but point-buy could be used for a broader range if that were desired.

Sure, you can home brew/house rule things all day long. I'm discussing RAW, though.

Stop and think about it. How could the range possible with random generation be 'part of the calculation?' By definition, it's random, it won't be the same for everyone, or even every table. The only way to take it into account is to go with averages. You roll better than whatever average or expected value they built around, you're 'just better,' exactly like the guy with the magic item giving the same bonus.

No. I disagree.

Designer 1: We have a range of stats from 3-18. How can we keep a luck roll from overshadowing an unlucky one?

Designer 2: I got it! We downplay the significance of stats in 5e, and play up class abilities, racial abilities, and feats. Then we cap how how stats can go. That way when we design things, high and low rolls will be close enough in ability that one can't overshadow the other.

Designer 1: Brilliant! Won't people who are used to stats being super influential still freak out over lucky and unlucky rolls, though?

Designer 2: Some will for sure, but it can't be helped if they don't look closely at how 5e has changed things. They'll still have point buy and arrays, though.

5e boosted the impact of abilities, feats, spells, etc. so that stats don't mean nearly as much these days. They've accounted for high and low rolls.

That's the kind of game 5e is designed to be. Doesn't mean the DM can't use magic items and figure them into the challenges he designs, or use point-buy or array to have less variabilty to compensate for. But, out the box, 5e is meant to have a comparatively high degree of variability among the PCs, some are going to be 'just better' than others. That's part of the point, the classic feel that makes it D&D.

I agree. That's why there are still class tiers, though fewer of them. Stats will increase that variability, but don't have enough impact to allow one PC to completely overshadow another any longer.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm talking RAW here, not home brew/house rule.

'RAW' really doesn't mean much in 5e. But the point stands: if you use array, that's the range of possible stats, you get the full range of 'possible' characters. Sure, there are fewer of them than if you used 4d6, but it's the full range. ;P

Designer 1: We have a range of stats from 3-18. How can we keep a luck roll from overshadowing an unlucky one?

Designer 2: I got it! We downplay the significance of stats in 5e, and play up class abilities, racial abilities, and feats. Then we cap how how stats can go.

Nice idea, but BA limits the bonuses from proficiency to 2-6 over 20 levels, while the range of stats goes from negatives up to +5. That's not exactly downplaying the significance of stats.

I agree. That's why there are still class tiers, though fewer of them.

Nod.

Stats will increase that variability, but don't have enough impact to allow one PC to completely overshadow another any longer.

Not see'n it. Look at a simple character, like a champion fighter, it doesn't have many class abilities that don't directly depend on a stat in some way. Extra Attack & Action Surge, the fighter's premier abilities, very dependent on primary attack stat, be it STR or DEX. 'Remarkable' Athlete? It's up to +3 bonus hardly outweighs a stat bonus that could be as high as +5 (or 0 or less). Likewise 'Indomitable,' re-rolling a save when your stat sucks isn't much of a perk.

Now, it'd be a bit more true with casters - even if your primary caster stat sucked, you could avoid spells that give saves or require attack rolls, that hurts, but you won't be useless. But, in general, stats /really/ matter in 5e, since proficiency bonuses are so low...

 

[Maxperson]

'RAW' really doesn't mean much in 5e. But the point stands: if you use array, that's the range of possible stats, you get the full range of 'possible' characters. Sure, there are fewer of them than if you used 4d6, but it's the full range. ;P

RAW means as much as it did in every other edition. That's the rule unless a house rule overrides it. Sure 5e encourages changing the rules via rulings moreso than other editions, but RAW still has a lot of meaning.

Nice idea, but BA limits the bonuses from proficiency to 2-6 over 20 levels, while the range of stats goes from negatives up to +5. That's not exactly downplaying the significance of stats.

And if that was all there was to a character, you'd be on to something. There's a whole lot more to class abilities than proficiency.

Nod. Not see'n it. Look at a simple character, like a champion fighter, it doesn't have many class abilities that don't directly depend on a stat in some way. Extra Attack & Action Surge, the fighter's premier abilities, very dependent on primary attack stat, be it STR or DEX. 'Remarkable' Athlete? It's up to +3 bonus hardly outweighs a stat bonus that could be as high as +5 (or 0 or less). Likewise 'Indomitable,' re-rolling a save when your stat sucks isn't much of a perk.

So pick another class if you roll poorly. ::shrug:: Using that as proof that stats mean a lot is like saying that using fists is proof that fighters suck at dealing damage. If you make a poor choice, that's your fault.

 

[Maxperson]

'RAW' really doesn't mean much in 5e. But the point stands: if you use array, that's the range of possible stats, you get the full range of 'possible' characters. Sure, there are fewer of them than if you used 4d6, but it's the full range. ;P

RAW means as much as it did in every other edition. That's the rule unless a house rule overrides it. Sure 5e encourages changing the rules via rulings moreso than other editions, but RAW still has a lot of meaning.

Nice idea, but BA limits the bonuses from proficiency to 2-6 over 20 levels, while the range of stats goes from negatives up to +5. That's not exactly downplaying the significance of stats.

And if that was all there was to a character, you'd be on to something. There's a whole lot more to class abilities than proficiency.

Nod. Not see'n it. Look at a simple character, like a champion fighter, it doesn't have many class abilities that don't directly depend on a stat in some way. Extra Attack & Action Surge, the fighter's premier abilities, very dependent on primary attack stat, be it STR or DEX. 'Remarkable' Athlete? It's up to +3 bonus hardly outweighs a stat bonus that could be as high as +5 (or 0 or less). Likewise 'Indomitable,' re-rolling a save when your stat sucks isn't much of a perk.

So pick another class if you roll poorly. ::shrug:: Using that as proof that stats mean a lot is like saying that using fists is proof that fighters suck at dealing damage. If you make a poor choice, that's your fault.

 

[Tony Vargas]

RAW means as much as it did in every other edition.

It really doesn't, not under the rubric of DM Empowerment. In 3e RAW meant a lot, because the community was obsessed with it (and coined it). In 5e, as in the classic game, "RAW" is just a starting point.

But, it really makes no difference to the point. What's 'possible' by RAW using a given method is what the method delivers. Array just delivers most consistently, and random least.

And if that was all there was to a character, you'd be on to something. There's a whole lot more to class abilities than proficiency.

I gave you one example, the Champion, that really doesn't have a whole lot going for it, and the Champ is the 'simple' option pointed at new characters, so it doesn't seem like one that should suddenly start requiring system mastery just to cope with a some bad rolls at chargen. :shrug:

So pick another class if you roll poorly. ::shrug:: Using that as proof that stats mean a lot is like saying that using fists is proof that fighters suck at dealing damage. If you make a poor choice, that's your fault.

I think that's pretty conclusive proof, right there, that random generation gets in the way of playing what you want.

Even the standard array will let you play a bloody Champion.

 

[Maxperson]

It really doesn't, not under the rubric of DM Empowerment. In 3e RAW meant a lot, because the community was obsessed with it (and coined it). In 5e, as in the classic game, "RAW" is just a starting point.

It was a people thing I think, not a setting one. 1e and 2e were just as "empowering" as 5e. 3e saw the influx of millennials, which probably had a lot more to do with the attempt to take away DM power than the rules did. I played with an old school group and we suffered no loss in empowerment at all during that edition.

But, it really makes no difference to the point. What's 'possible' by RAW using a given method is what the method delivers. Array just delivers most consistently, and random least.

It doesn't matter which system you use for stats. The range is still 3-20 including racial bonuses. PCs are unable to achieve those ranges with point buy and arrays, though.

I gave you one example, the Champion, that really doesn't have a whole lot going for it, and the Champ is the 'simple' option pointed at new characters, so it doesn't seem like one that should suddenly start requiring system mastery just to cope with a some bad rolls at chargen. :shrug:

A bit of system mastery is okay, even for beginners. Learning curves exist and are not a bad thing. It's okay to make mistakes and learn from them.

I think that's pretty conclusive proof, right there, that random generation gets in the way of playing what you want.

Nobody has claimed that every set of stats rolled works for every character type, just like every array doesn't work for every character type. I can achieve character types with rolling that you never will with point buy or array, though.

 

[Caliban]

I can achieve character types with rolling that you never will with point buy or array, though.

YOU achieved nothing. The dice did all the work for you.

 

[Tony Vargas]

. 1e and 2e were just as "empowering" as 5e.

I called them 'the classic game,' and late 2e maybe not so much, but that is what I said. RAW was a 3e obsession.

3e saw the influx of millennials, which probably had a lot more to do with the attempt to take away DM power than the rules did.

The rules of 3e opened up huge rewards for system mastery, so it's not hard to surmise how that might have led to enshrining RAW.

No generation gap required.

It doesn't matter which system you use for stats. The range is still 3-20 including racial bonuses. PCs are unable to achieve those ranges with point buy and arrays, though.

Its not like you 'achieve' a 3, but ASIs will certainly let you achieve a 20 by levelling

A bit of system mastery is okay, even for beginners. Learning curves exist and are not a bad thing. It's okay to make mistakes and learn from them.

You have your stereotypical just-wanna-hit-da-orc-wit-m'ax Champion player, what's he supposed to play to get there when random chargen doesn't come through with a high STR?

Nobody has claimed that every set of stats rolled works for every character type, just like every array doesn't work for every character type.

Every class is workable with a standard array.

I can achieve character types with rolling that you never will with point buy or array, though.

You can accept the array the dice give you.

 

[Lanefan]

It really doesn't, not under the rubric of DM Empowerment. In 3e RAW meant a lot, because the community was obsessed with it (and coined it). In 5e, as in the classic game, "RAW" is just a starting point.

So...3e and 4e have RAW - Rules As Written - while 1e 2e and 5e have GAW - Guidelines As Written.

Which would go a long way to explaining why a player who cut her teeth on 3e or 4e would look at 5e's relaxed rules much differently than someone who started with 0e or 1e.

Lanefan

 

[Arial Black]

I like building characters within set constraints of the game. Since the end result is a character I want to play, I am building the character I want with point buy.

What you said (while true) was said in the context of 'what are the objective advantages and disadvantages of various methods'. We understood what you said to be what you believed was an objective advantage of that method for any player that uses that method, yet it turns out that you only meant that it only works that way for you. That's misleading, although I can accept that you never intended to mislead.

I'll illustrate what I mean by simply saying the exact same thing you did, but apply it to the standard array of 15/14/13/12/10/8: "I use the standard array because it lets me create the concept I want".

Is this statement true? Well, it can be true in the sense that I can then qualify my statement by stating that every 'concept I want' just happens to be satisfied by some arrangement of those six stats, so I couldn't be proved to be lying.

However, in the context of 'what are the benefits and drawbacks of each method', it is not true that the standard array lets players play whatever concept they want!

That is why I took issue with your statement. It was misleading as it seemed, in context, that you were mentioning an objective truth about the benefits of point-buy for any player that uses it.

As I've stated this many, many times. You disagree. OK. Got it. You disagree with my personal definition of what it means to build the character I want.

Now that you've made it clear that you were only stating your strangely narrow definition of 'concepts I want', rather than stating an objective advantage of point-buy for all players, then it's all good! Enjoy your trip.