D&D 5E Remember the "3d6 For Stats In Order" Thread? I'm doing it!

[DND_Reborn]

Hmm, that line alone as reinforcement for trying to make the best character you can and play as effectively as you can given the draw is almost enough for me to use the draw method sometime.

I'm going to try it when we start up a new campaign. Best of luck to you!

 

[FrogReaver]

That's a fair point and I shall be more mindful next time. What I am pondering is...


Once losses that all (intentionally) suffer are removed, to focus on relative losses i.e. overshadowing, and by looking at ability arrays that provably can be generated, I feel like the question becomes one of scarcity, and not weakness.

The deck I'm using is quite flat, so in some respects it advantages MAD classes more than it does one-core-ability classes. It's reasonably likely to have a few decent attributes (albeit all lower than what might be called decent with 4d6k3 or points-buy) and if those land in the right places the monk is as well supported as any other class. It's no worse for them than other chargen options.

Apparently we are talking about two different things. I'm talking about 3d6 roll in order.

 

[clearstream]

Your card method doesn't favor Paladins over using 4d6k3 or point-buy. Point-buy, for instance, will generate a total of 69 to 75 points for ability scores as where the cards method is 63. Being so much lower means you are less likely to have "viable" (whatever than means for you, me, whoever?) ability scores to play a Paladin, for instance.

I think it does, relatively. Under points-buy, the one core ability class can sink their points into that and dump freely elsewhere, and they can choose their race to optimally boost their key stat. A paladin doesn't have that option. Under 4d6k3, it's far more likely to have an array with one very high roll, than with two or three. So the one core ability class is more frequently favoured.

So my thoughts on points-buy is that it creates more relative disadvantage for paladins (cards using my mix creates absolute disadvantage for everyone). 4d6k3 just creates scarcity, which to be fair my cards mix does also. I suppose 4d6k3 could result in an overwhelmingly powerful paladin on the flip side, so there's that.

 

[clearstream]

Is this like saying that certain classes will become trap options unless the dice are very generous, and those with system mastery will avoid them.

I guess one should first note that no option is a trap option, unless it is punished by the DM's game difficulty setting or some other ill like player-player overshadowing. That noted, yes, I think so. My experience with cards-in-order so far is that arrays often fall in ways that pull you in multiple directions, but one does tend to channel down the mechanically stronger pathways. Perhaps because the sub-optimal pathways end up even more horrible than they would under other methods.

That's why I have at every point in this conversation focused squarely on players with high-system mastery. I also would not use points-buy for players with low-system mastery: it's a very unfair system if one doesn't understand the mechanics (or have a guide that does). Noted its strengths for wider play where arrays must be self-validating. Standard array would be better I think (for low system mastery).

4d6k3 arrange at will would be my choice for low-system mastery, because the values are so generally high that the character will be strong relative to official material pretty much regardless. And it is easy to guide without being overbearing - "Oh, you want to be an X? Just put those two high rolls on S and C". The results of allocate in order are trickier "I see you have strong S and I so you might go X or maybe Z is better... I wonder what it looks lie after race..." etc.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I think it does, relatively. Under points-buy, the one core ability class can sink their points into that and dump freely elsewhere, and they can choose their race to optimally boost their key stat. A paladin doesn't have that option. Under 4d6k3, it's far more likely to have an array with one very high roll, than with two or three. So the one core ability class is more frequently favoured.

So my thoughts on points-buy is that it creates more relative disadvantage for paladins (cards using my mix creates absolute disadvantage for everyone). 4d6k3 just creates scarcity, which to be fair my cards mix does also. I suppose 4d6k3 could result in an overwhelmingly powerful paladin on the flip side, so there's that.

I guess it depends on what you mean by favoring a class? As you say, the card method creates disadvantage for everyone, but if it is hard to get good scores for MAD classes, such as a Paladin, with 4d6k3 and point-buy, it is harder with the card method since it creates overall lower scores. Of course, this was by design so is not unexpected.

You are more likely to only have one good score with the card method, and by design if you happen to have two good scores or even three, you must have one or more low ones. The following table represents possible arrays with scores that would favor one, two, or three better scores using the card method.

Three	Two	One	Three (balanced)	Two (balanced)	One (balanced)
14	15	15	12	12	12
14	14	11	12	12	11
13	10	10	12	11	11
8	9	9	10	10	10
8	9	9	9	10	10
6	6	9	8	8	9

This is because the distribution is even on both the high and low ends for the card method. Although 4d6k3 might have only one or two higher rolls, those relatively high rolls are more likely because the distribution is skewed towards the high end with more of the probability above 12 (over 60%) than below it..

With point-buy you can have two or even three +2 modifiers (three is impossible with the card method). To address point-buy, the table below shows three sets of ability scores depending on how many "high" scores they desire (even three for MAD classes, such as a paladin). None of these arrays have any negative modifiers.

Three	Two	One
14	15	15
14	15	12
14	11	12
10	10	12
10	10	12
10	10	10

The point is with 4d6k3 you are more likely to get rolls above the average than below, supporting MAD classes like the paladin. With point-buy, you can always build a set of scores that will support MAD classes. With the card method, because it is an even distribution, you are less likely to get multiple higher scores to support MAD, and if you happen to, you must have lower scores to offset the high ones.

So, although I like the idea of the card method and having overall lower scores, it really doesn't support a higher likelihood of MAD classes--it favors SAD ones.

 

[clearstream]

Three	Two	One	Three (balanced)	Two (balanced)	One (balanced)
14	15	15	12	12	12
14	14	11	12	12	11
13	10	10	12	11	11
8	9	9	10	10	10
8	9	9	9	10	10
6	6	9	8	8	9

Consider after race -

Three = 16 15 14 etc
Two = 16 16 etc
One = 16 etc

So what I am thinking of is that yes, scarcity, but no, not much overshadowing. Ms Three lost +1 compared with the others. A 15 doesn't payout more than a 14 (except in the most marginal of ways, like CC) until an ASI can be applied, but the efficiency of that ASI will vary depending on the precise array along with other factors (relevant skills, nature of campaign, sub-class choices, etc).

With point-buy you can have two or even three +2 modifiers (three is impossible with the card method). To address point-buy, the table below shows three sets of ability scores depending on how many "high" scores they desire (even three for MAD classes, such as a paladin). None of these arrays have any negative modifiers.

Three	Two	One
14	15	15
14	15	12
14	11	12
10	10	12
10	10	12
10	10	10

Consider after race and first ASI -

Three = 16 15 14 etc >> 18 15 14 etc
Two = 17 16 etc >> 17 18 etc
One = 17 etc >> 19 etc

So, although I like the idea of the card method and having overall lower scores, it really doesn't support a higher likelihood of MAD classes--it favors SAD ones.

I think with your helpful analysis I am drawn to saying that cards and points-buy are the same for MAD. It might be that the card mix should be tuned further, but I am not sure how to approach the probability analysis. For instance, are those arrays with 15s that are serving One and Two, more or less probable than the array with two 14s?

I continue to suspect that 4d6k3 will usually put one and two ability classes further ahead of three than the more constrained systems. Compare the likelihood of one super-score to that of three. Sometimes the 4d6k3 MAD character will be fine or, very occasionally, amazing.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I think with your helpful analysis I am drawn to saying that cards and points-buy are the same for MAD. It might be that the card mix should be tuned further, but I am not sure how to approach the probability analysis. For instance, are those arrays with 15s that are serving One and Two, more or less probable than the array with two 14s?

Well, I am glad to help and find it interesting. Point-buy is perfect for MAD classes as you can build a character with three good abilities and no penalties. You can draw a three score decent MAD character with cards, but because it is balanced out, you will have two penalties.

As far as those three arrays, the single 15 (one) is the most likely, two is next, and three with the 14's is least likely. This is because of how the draws have to happen. For a single 15, you only need one score to draw 3 of the 5's. For array "two", the fives are required as well as one of the 4's. But for 2 14's in three, four of the 5's and all of the fours have to be in those scores. So, even with the card system, it is hard to get MAD class scores supported if you want them to be higher scores. If you are happy with a more balanced, but decent scores, such as {12, 12, 12, 10, 9, 8} that is not hard to get and prior to racial adjustments would be perfectly acceptable to me.

I continue to suspect that 4d6k3 will usually put one and two ability classes further ahead of three than the more constrained systems. Compare the likelihood of one super-score to that of three. Sometimes the 4d6k3 MAD character will be fine or, very occasionally, amazing.

Actually, no, 4d6k3 is more likely to have more "better" scores because it has replacement. In the card method, if you get a 15, those 5's are not available later and consequently your scores will be lower. When rolling 4d6k3, if I roll a 15, all the numbers are still available later on for me to roll another.

If you recall a while ago, this was one reason why I asked if your idea was with replacement or not. With replacement in 4d6k3, I could get an array of all 13's, all scores above average of 12.45. With cards, I can't get an array of all 11's, with all scores above the average of 10.5.

FYI, here are the probabilities for the individual scores as there are 816 combinations you can draw for a single result. Later draws are dependent on earlier ones, but ultimately the probabilities remain consistent because if you draw certain numbers first, others are available later, and vice versa.

Score	N	Prob.
6	10	0.0123
7	40	0.0490
8	70	0.0858
9	134	0.1642
10	154	0.1887
11	154	0.1887
12	134	0.1642
13	70	0.0858
14	40	0.0490
15	10	0.0123
TOTAL =	816

 

[clearstream]

Actually, no, 4d6k3 is more likely to have more "better" scores because it has replacement.

I'm guessing that of six 4d6k3 rolls, the probability that up to two will be say 16+ is better than the probability that three or more will be. That could be wrong: have you analysed it?

 

[DND_Reborn]

I'm guessing that of six 4d6k3 rolls, the probability that up to two will be say 16+ is better than the probability that three or more will be. That could be wrong: have you analysed it?

Oh, sure, of course. You are always less likely to get more higher rolls than fewer, but that is true with point-buy and cards as well. And as I wrote, with point-buy and cards, since there is no replacement, having good scores necessitates having poor ones. With 4d6k3, it is theoretically possible, however unlikely, to have all six scores be 18.

The more important issue you might be wondering about is are you more likely to get a 16 with 4d6k3 or a 13 with cards? We know cards generated lower numbers, so what are the equivalents? They are roughly these:

4d6k3 = Cards
5 = 6
6 = 7
8 = 8
10 = 9
11 = 10
13 = 11
14 = 12
16 = 13
17 = 14
18 = 15

 

[Ratskinner]

High STR was a boon, not a requirement, as it seems to be in 5E. I've played many fighters (and had others as well) with STR below 18.

This is precisely the opposite of my experience. From what I can tell, the AD&D exceptional strength bonus is a tremendous incentive for fighter-players to "cheat"* on stat rolls. I don't know that I've ever seen a single-class AD&D fighter without exceptional strength...which flies in the face of all this "tough guy" OSR rhetoric that I hear so much...and statistics.

*"cheat" here meaning everything from flat-out: "No, I rolled it straight up, honest!" To lobbying for more bizarre rolling methods to suicide by fighters without exceptional strength.