D&D 5E Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats

[Hussar]

Well, that's 19 PC deaths per year. That's not too high. I've run campaigns around that level, just nowhere near for as long.

But, that is the primary issue. The "Realism" side claiming die rolling is more realistic, is simply speaking a different language than the point buy side since the criteria is completely different.

Even if die rolling was more realistic, who cares? Again, it's a smurf arguing who is more blue. Considering every other facet of chargen is chosen by the player, down to choosing where to put those die rolled stats, the notion that there is any sort of mapping between player and character choices during chargen is a joke.

Hey, look, I have a 17 Strength. Why? Because I rolled it dontcha know. What do you mean what's a roll? Hey, we ALL rolled to create ourselves. No, that's more realistic. When you were born... oh wait, you weren't born... when you sprung into existence you weren't strong because you were the blacksmith's son, since, well, you couldn't be the blacksmith's son before you rolled. No, you were strong because you rolled really well and then you chose to be really strong. Yup, this is a completely believable world.

 

[Lanefan]

You monster! Creating characters only to kill them off in a meat grinder of a campaign! Oh the humanity!

Humanity...Elfanity...Dwarfanity...Gnomanity...all pretty much the same, really.

And that includes characters with stupendous stats, characters with awful stats, and a whole bunch in between. They were all rolled.

Note however that they're not all dead - the advantage of keeping good stats lets me tell you 79 of them are still alive, either active or retired. Which means, I suppose, that 116 have died the death; quite a few of those very early on. There's been more deaths, of course, but revival effects and magics take care of that...most of the time.

 

[Maxperson]

8-17 since you include racial adjustments,

Okay. 8-17. My bad.

and up to 20 with ASIs. Then the same 1-30 range "by special means." So, no, not all that meaningfully difference in the range of possible stats.

None of this matters when discussing rolling up characters. The normal range of stats for a rolled up 1st level PC is 3-20. 8-17 still doesn't allow for the full normal range of abilities.

 

[Maxperson]

I think we're in agreement on this. The end result of point-buy is you're picking one of sixty-five arrays of six numbers each, not that you're picking six specific numbers in isolation from one another. No method I know of lets you do that.

Not in isolation, no. You are picking those numbers, though.

But it isn't the character that's doing either the selecting or the rolling. It's you, the player at the table, so I don't see how one method can better represent reality than another. When you create your character, you aren't playing your character. Your character's backstory isn't that it created itself! Your character's backstory is that it was shaped by environmental factors into the person it is at level one. When you, the player, create your character, you are taking on the role of the environment that made your character what it is, playing God, so to speak. Alternate methods of ability score generation only represent reality inasmuch as they represent factors of the environment that determined those scores. Dice-rolling can represent a reality where the hand of fortune randomly deals out strengths and weaknesses to brave adventurers. Point-buy (or standard array) can represent a reality where the abilities of adventurers are predetermined by what fate has in store for them. Or the entire operation can be viewed as a non-representational method for determining some ability scores for your character. Neither approach is more or less valid, and neither representation of reality is more or less realistic.

Yes, but God doesn't give people one single set of stats that everyon has, or even 65 varieties of stats. The range is much greater, like rolling gives.

You keep saying this, even though it doesn't remotely respond to anything I've said.

I keep saying that the section that talks about rolling NPCs means the rolling rules in the PHB. You keep responding with, but adventurers. If you are not saying that the rolling rules are 4 adventurers only, then they can in fact be for NPCs of all stripes.

Your claim is that the 4d6 drop lowest method is intended for use in all cases where a character's abilities are rolled. Correct? My counter-claim is that 4d6 drop lowest is only given as the rolling method for adventurers (including any NPC with an adventuring class), but can otherwise be used by a DM however he or she wishes, since no prohibition on its use for other purposes exists.

My claim is supported by the first sentence of the chapter in which the dice-rolling method is given, which says, "Your first step in playing an adventurer in the Dungeons & Dragons game is to imagine and create a character of your own." Further down the page, adventurers are again referenced in the first sentence of the second paragraph, which reads, "Before you dive into step 1 below, think about the kind of adventurer you want to play." This makes it clear that what's given in this chapter is a step-by-step method for the creation of characters that are adventurers, and that when the chapter subsequently refers to "your character" (as in the sentence "You generate your character's six ability scores randomly."), it is referring to an adventurer.

It's the only system 5e gives, yes. The PHB references adventurers, because it's a book for players. However, not one rule in the PHB is only for players. Those rules, items, etc. are also for the DM and all of his NPCs. The PHB also says the following about items.

"For an adventurer, the availability of armor, weapons, backpacks, rope, and similar goods is of paramount importance, since proper equipment can mean the difference between life and death in a dungeon or the untamed wilds.".

If we're to believe your argument that the words "For an adventurer" and the like preclude commoners, then you are arguing that no commoner can have a rope or pick up a sword. Heck, they can't even eat since food is listed as "For an adventurer". The argument falls flat, because despite all of the "For adventurers" comments, all of it is for everyone. The PHB just talks to the Player(adventurer) as the mode of speech it uses.

What textual basis do you have for your claim?

The fact that every single rule in the PHB is not just for players or adventurers. Those rules are all used by the DM as well and no language anywhere says otherwise.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yes, but God doesn't give people one single set of stats that everyon has, or even 65 varieties of stats. The range is much greater, like rolling gives.

The 4d6k3/standard-array default is used to generate PCs, if you have more than 65 PCs in your party, that's a potential issue... otherwise, not meaningful.

Once you get into generating the whole population, you're not talking RAW methods only, but whatever the DM uses. Whatever that is, it'll probably include a very broad range - especially 'low' relative to PCs. There could be 'point buy' NPCs built on negative points, for instance.

None of this matters when discussing rolling up characters.

After you roll up characters, you play them. If you don't, there's no point.

If you are not saying that the rolling rules are 4 adventurers only, then they can in fact be for NPCs of all stripes.

They can, but so can anything else the DM decides to use. He can arbitrarily assign stats. Not assign stats at all, assign only some, or use whatever variation on the PC method of choice he wants - while still maintaining that versimilitude of PCs & NPCs using similar methods. Whether that's 4d6 for PCs, 3d6 for unremarkable NPCs, or Standard Array for PCs, strait 10's for commoners, or 27 point buy for PCs, 12 point buy for leser NPCs... etc...

 

[Hriston]

My main group has been using the 'Choose Whatever Stats You Want' method for over twenty years now, without issue. This is a method that lets you choose six specific numbers in isolation from one another.

Of course, I can see that this method would not work for AL or competition play.

I'd forgotten about that method. It's a fine method and one many DMs use for any NPCs to which they wish to give ability scores. Personally, I set scores for any NPCs that need them by using either a rolling method or an array appropriate to their power level, or if I think they need a particular score, by balancing that score through a point-buy of a number of points appropriate to the character.

Although we can quibble about the specifics of how flat or not the bell curve is, no-one here has denied that the reality of populations is modeled by bell curves; how loose or how tight is up for debate, but the bell curve itself is not.

So we can have a bell curve of 3d6, a skewed curve of 4d6k3, a tight curve from 15d2-12(!), and so on, and they will be 'realistic' to a greater or lesser extent by simply using a bell curve.

Technically, a bell curve follows a normal distribution, which 3d6 does not. (15d2)-12 is much closer to a true bell curve because, as [MENTION=6857506]Harzel[/MENTION] pointed out, the more dice you roll, the more normal the distribution becomes, which is the same reason we expect to see populations conforming to a normal distribution in the natural world.

But imagine a method which says, "Toss a coin for each ability: heads it's 18, tails it's 3, and if it lands on its edge then it's 10". This is not a bell curve! It is absurd, and as a method of character creation it is totally unrealistic (where 'realism' = 'verisimilitude').

I agree it's a crap method, but the resulting character fits just fine on the 3d6 "bell curve", so if you think 3d6 is realistic enough, then how come that character seems unrealistic to you?

If I use point-buy, and choose three 15s (and en passant also 'choosing' three 8s) then this is not a bell curve either. It is just as absurd as the 3 or 18 coin toss just mentioned.

Unlike your coin-toss method, point-buy doesn't establish a distribution of scores, curved or otherwise, but all of its results fit nicely on the 3d6 curve.

And yet, point-buy PCs seem to have come from a population where their Str and Dex scores were not on any bell curve but from a population that is either Str 15/Dex 8 OR Str 8/Dex 15.

How so? Both 15 and 8 appear on the 3d6 curve. Are you imagining a population so small there aren't multiple individuals with that combination of scores?

You don't see how one method can better represent reality than another?

You're taking my comment out of context. I was addressing the argument that dice-rolling better represents the reality of how a character's scores are generated because it takes decisions by the player out of the equation. Your argument is about whether point-buy is suitable for modelling populations. I don't think anyone has asserted that it is.

 

[pemerton]

When fantasy elements such as magic are stripped away from the game world, ideally the results would be somewhat similar; giving a solid and believable foundation on which to place the fantasy elements. And where the results are not similar there would be a clear and reasonable (or at least rational) explanation why; this explanation might be as simple as the DM deciding she wants something to be different in her world (e.g. she wants a clear sky to be orange instead of blue and explains it as caused by a different chemical composition of either the planet's atmosphere or the planet's main light source).

High level fighters being either so tough (if you like hp as meat) or so lucky (if you like Gygaxian) hp that they can reliably survive 200' falls onto solid rock; high level fighters being able to wrestle lions to the ground; etc - all this seems not consistent with reality as I'm familiar with it. But if that all gets covered by your "fantasy elements stripped away" clause, then why are you making any sort of fuss about ability scores?

all that's needed is that the game world remain consistent with itself. PC generation methods being in isolation from NPC generation methods violates that consistency.

Why? What's inconsistent about all PCs having stats chosen from the array of 65 arrays, while NPC stats range more widely? Where's the contradiction?

 

[Maxperson]

The 4d6k3/standard-array default is used to generate PCs, if you have more than 65 PCs in your party, that's a potential issue... otherwise, not meaningful.

Once you get into generating the whole population, you're not talking RAW methods only, but whatever the DM uses. Whatever that is, it'll probably include a very broad range - especially 'low' relative to PCs. There could be 'point buy' NPCs built on negative points, for instance.

It's not about generating the whole population. It's about knowing the range of stats for the whole population and which method best expresses that range.

After you roll up characters, you play them. If you don't, there's no point.

Sure, that's true. It's also not important to this discussion. For the last 93 pages, this discussion has been about generating PCs and NPCs, not about what happens after generation.

 

[Maxperson]

Why? What's inconsistent about all PCs having stats chosen from the array of 65 arrays, while NPC stats range more widely? Where's the contradiction?

It's nonsensical to think that if you have even a single stat that falls outside of the range given in those arrays, you are somehow kept from ever being a PC. 65 magical PC stat ranges and the rest you the world is left out in the cold.

 

[Maxperson]

How so? Both 15 and 8 appear on the 3d6 curve. Are you imagining a population so small there aren't multiple individuals with that combination of scores?

He's probably imaging a world where there isn't Inspector 12 measuring all of the people who want to be PC adventurers.

Inspector 12: "Sorry Bork, you have a 17 strength before racial bonuses. I have to stamp you an NPC. Next!"