D&D 5E Rolled character stats higher than point buy?

[Oofta]

I suppose it should be asked do you make a character and then roll stats or roll stats and then Make a character? One is much easier than the other.

I decide what person I want to play and then work backwards of what race and class they would be. After all of that I figure out stats.

Now that I think about it, I frequently paint a cool mini and then decide what kind of person the mini represents, etc.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Why would I compare apples and oranges?

By comparing apples and apples I've shown that Wimpy is half as effective at filling the combat roll as Super Dave. In addition, Wimpy doesn't hold a candle to Super Dave in the out of combat rolls. Mixing up what role in the party the character fills isn't going to change anything - Super Dave will always be significantly better at overcoming obstacles in the game in or out of combat.

I would not like that, I've had discussions about this with multiple groups and never found anyone in real life that would like it.

If you're ok with it, all I can do is quote The Dude. That's just, like your opinion man.

Well, even if that were the ideal methodology to use (as opposed to building to your actual strengths given your stats, e.g. not taking Intimidation on Wimpy Kid, or Rogue levels so you can be less stat-dependent), you haven't actually shown that because you handwaved ASIs and monster ACs. If we go back and look at it in detail: by 10th level, both Wimpy and Super Dave have had three ASIs and can afford to have Sharpshooter and Dex 20. Their damage output will be virtually identical, although Super Dave can afford to have other feats as well, and if he picks Crossbow Expert he could have an extra attack at the cost of a smaller damage die and his bonus action.

Super Dave is more durable and can afford more odd multiclass combinations, but if they're both just wood elf archers with no feats, they'll be doing identical damage by level 10.

 

[Maxperson]

Why would I compare apples and oranges?

By comparing apples and apples I've shown that Wimpy is half as effective at filling the combat roll as Super Dave. In addition, Wimpy doesn't hold a candle to Super Dave in the out of combat rolls. Mixing up what role in the party the character fills isn't going to change anything - Super Dave will always be significantly better at overcoming obstacles in the game in or out of combat.

This premise is not the one we are discussing. What we are discussing is the ability to have fun and contribute with a character with low stats. Part and parcel to that idea is the assumption that we are not playing with a complete arse who is going to make an identical character, complete with the same skills.

The game reality is that Super Dave is going to be a Paladin or other class and have different skills. Wimpy will be able to contribute with his bow in combat and have a great time out of combat with his different non-combat skills.

That's the claim we are making, and your comparison doesn't address it. That's why it's flawed.

 

[Oofta]

Well, even if that were the ideal methodology to use (as opposed to building to your actual strengths given your stats, e.g. not taking Intimidation on Wimpy Kid, or Rogue levels so you can be less stat-dependent), you haven't actually shown that because you handwaved ASIs and monster ACs. If we go back and look at it in detail: by 10th level, both Wimpy and Super Dave have had three ASIs and can afford to have Sharpshooter and Dex 20. Their damage output will be virtually identical, although Super Dave can afford to have other feats as well, and if he picks Crossbow Expert he could have an extra attack at the cost of a smaller damage die and his bonus action.

Super Dave is more durable and can afford more odd multiclass combinations, but if they're both just wood elf archers with no feats, they'll be doing identical damage by level 10.

Well ... I was assuming monster AC of 15. I did a wood elf archer because it was something someone suggested. I took intimidation because in my mind a scout that can live on his own in the wilderness, sneak up on the bad guys and then intimidate them into surrendering sounded like the kind of character I wanted to run.

As far as doing identical damage ... whatever. Super Dave could have all the feats he wants, Wimpy Kid is going to have to choose between feats and stat bumps. Basically Super Dave could have two other feats and then you get into all sorts of combinations he could do that Wimpy Kid will never have the option of. None of that addresses saving throws, or contributions to overcoming out of combat challenges.

Could I have fun with Wimpy Kid? Sure. Stats don't make the character. Would I want to play Wimpy Kid if Super Dave were also in the party? No.

I give. If you can't admit how numerically different these characters are, you are not discussing in good faith.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Well ... I was assuming monster AC of 15. I did a wood elf archer because it was something someone suggested. I took intimidation because in my mind a scout that can live on his own in the wilderness, sneak up on the bad guys and then intimidate them into surrendering sounded like the kind of character I wanted to run.

As far as doing identical damage ... whatever. Super Dave could have all the feats he wants, Wimpy Kid is going to have to choose between feats and stat bumps. Basically Super Dave could have two other feats and then you get into all sorts of combinations he could do that Wimpy Kid will never have the option of. None of that addresses saving throws, or contributions to overcoming out of combat challenges.

Could I have fun with Wimpy Kid? Sure. Stats don't make the character. Would I want to play Wimpy Kid if Super Dave were also in the party? No.

I give. If you can't admit how numerically different these characters are, you are not discussing in good faith.

I've already conceded that Wimpy Kid is redundant when Super Dave is in the party, and therefore I didn't feel the need to nitpick your math at the time--but now you're claiming to have "proven" that Wimpy Kid is 50% as effective in combat as Super Dave, and I take exception to that claim because you haven't proven anything of the sort.

Your numbers cover first through third level before they get any ASIs. You can't pretend to analyze a 10th level character without actually analyzing a 10th level character. Plugging in the correct number of ASIs for your identical builds is the minimum you would do for a good analysis. Look, I'll do the analysis for you, against AC 15:

1st level:
Wimpy Kid has +7 to hit, hits 65% of the time for d8+3, does 5.1 damage per round on average including crits. He's 69% as effective as Super Dave.
Super Dave has +9 to hit, hits 75% of the time for d8+5, does 7.35 damage per round on average including crits. He's 45% more effective than Wimpy Kid.

4th level: both of them take Sharpshooter
Wimpy Kid has +2 to hit, hits 40% of the time for d8+13, does 7.23 damage per round on average including crits. He's 72% as effective as Super Dave.
Super Dave has +4 to hit, hits 50% of the time for d8+15, does 9.98 damage per round on average including crits. He's 38% more effective than Wimpy Kid.

6th level: Let's say Wimpy Kid takes either +2 Dex or Crossbow Expert [using the official ruling on CE, which I dislike but most people use]. Super Dave just takes Crossbow Expert.
Wimpy Kid [crossbow configuration] has +3 to hit and 3 attacks for d6+13. He now does 22.8 damage per round including crits. He's 73% as effective as Super Dave.
Wimpy Kid [Dex 18 configuration] has +4 to hit and 2 attacks for d8+14. He does 18.95 damage per round including crits. He's 61% as effective as Super Dave.
Super Dave has +5 to hit and 3 attacks for d6+15. He does 31.05 damage per round including crits. He's still 36% more effective than Wimpy Kid [crossbow] but 64% more effective than Wimpy Kid [crossbow].

8th level: Wimpy Kid takes +2 Dex. Super Dave takes [??? Resilient Wis?]
Wimpy Kid [Dex 18 crossbow configuration] has +4 to hit and 3 attacks for d6+14. He now does 26.78 damage per round including crits. He's 86% as effective as Super Dave.
Wimpy Kid [Dex 20 configuration] has +5 to hit and 2 attacks for d8+15. He does 21.9 damage per round including crits. He's 71% as effective as Super Dave.
Super Dave has +5 to hit and 3 attacks for d6+15. He still does 31.05 damage per round including crits. He's still 16% more effective than Wimpy Kid [crossbow] but 41% more effective than Wimpy Kid [crossbow], and he is better at resisting madness/fear/etc.

10th level:
Wimpy Kid [Dex 18 crossbow configuration] has +5 to hit and 3 attacks for d6+14. He now does 29.4 damage per round including crits. He's 87% as effective as super Dave.
Wimpy Kid [Dex 20 configuration] has +6 to hit and 2 attacks for d8+15. He does 23.85 damage per round including crits. He's 70% as effective as Super Dave.
Super Dave has +6 to hit and 3 attacks for d6+15. He does 33.83 damage per round including crits. He's still 15% more effective than Wimpy Kid [crossbow] but 42% more effective than Wimpy Kid [crossbow], and he is better at resisting madness/fear/etc.

You've claimed that "I've shown that Wimpy is half as effective at filling the combat roll as Super Dave". So far you actually haven't done so, but here's your chance: propose something Super Dave could do differently (maybe a different feat choice at 8th level) that would boost his advantage from 15% to 100%, or else just admit that you were talking mostly about the defensive advantages of better HP and saving throws and not about any offensive advantages. Defensive advantages tend to be fairly unimportant for ranged characters compared to offensive advantages because the most important advantage (being far away/out of the effect radius) comes into play more often than saving throws/etc.

You're the one who claimed that Wimpy Kid was virtually unplayable. Not only have I shown a viable build that can come out of the very stats you rejected as unplayable, but it turns out that even when we analyze the very Super Dave and Wimpy Kid characters that you yourself invented, their differences turn out to be pretty minor, a matter of degree rather than kind. Everybody acknowledges that Wimpy Kid isn't needed if Super Dave is already in the party, but you know what? Super Dave isn't needed either if Wimpy Kid is in the party. Instead of wasting those stats on yet another archer, how about making something novel? Super Dave would make a great warbearian, which both complements Wimpy Kid's abilities and fills a new niche in the party.

 

[MechaPilot]

Why is it that rolled character stats are normally always higher than a character created through point buy? I pretty much never see someone post a rolled character with stats worse than point buy. Does anyone know why?

There's a few reasons that probably interact with each other a bit.

#1: Math.
Rolled stats (4d6 drop the lowest) does yield a higher average than point buy.

#2: Psychology.
People tend to post things that reflect well on themselves and avoid posting things that reflect poorly. Thus, you're far more likely to see what amounts to "hey, look how lucky I am" than you are to see what amounts to "lol, look at this thing that sucks." That's not to say that self-deprecation isn't a thing, but it's usually a means of ingratiating oneself to an audience than it is a general communication strategy.

#3: DM Policy.
Most of the DMs who I've played with as a player, and most of the DMs who I've spoken to as a fellow DM, will allow a reroll if the stats end up ranging from profoundly bad to average in every regard.

#4: Survival & Attachment.
Generally speaking, genuine attachment to a character takes time. In order for that period of time to elapse, the character must survive that long. Depending on what stats you rolled poorly on, a character may not have much survivability. This is more of an issue where stats are forced to be rolled in order, but it can occur where a player makes poor assignment choices.

 

[MostlyDm]

I decide what person I want to play and then work backwards of what race and class they would be. After all of that I figure out stats.

Now that I think about it, I frequently paint a cool mini and then decide what kind of person the mini represents, etc.

This explains everything.

Some stat configurations *don't really work* for some character concepts. But they'll still work for others.

By choosing everything first, you create expectations. You end up with a (maybe subconscious) "floor" of acceptable stats. Any amount of high stats will be ok, because who is mad that their Con is 17 instead of 15? But too low and your concept may fall apart.

Hemlock is starting with stats (the way the PHB does it) and building from there.

For what it's worth, I've done both. Sometimes you have a concept you really want to try. I get it. But for the purpose of this discussion, your approach is, I think, a big part of why you're feeling so disconnected from Hemlock's position.

 

[MechaPilot]

This explains everything.

Some stat configurations *don't really work* for some character concepts. But they'll still work for others.

By choosing everything first, you create expectations. You end up with a (maybe subconscious) "floor" of acceptable stats. Any amount of high stats will be ok, because who is mad that their Con is 17 instead of 15? But too low and your concept may fall apart.

Hemlock is starting with stats (the way the PHB does it) and building from there.

For what it's worth, I've done both. Sometimes you have a concept you really want to try. I get it. But for the purpose of this discussion, your approach is, I think, a big part of why you're feeling so disconnected from Hemlock's position.

I tend to always approach character creation from the perspective of creating a concept first. One of my favorite creative pursuits is writing, and I feel that moving from concept to mechanics is more similar to creating a literary or film character than starting from the stats and building upward.

 

[MostlyDm]

I tend to always approach character creation from the perspective of creating a concept first. One of my favorite creative pursuits is writing, and I feel that moving from concept to mechanics is more similar to creating a literary or film character than starting from the stats and building upward.

I think they can both be fun. Building a concept first can sometimes be a little tricky if you fail to execute it as imagined... Your literary figure ends up flopping.

Building from the stats up can also mean that you "discover" the character organically, going in directions you would not have planned. That can be really fun too!

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I tend to always approach character creation from the perspective of creating a concept first. One of my favorite creative pursuits is writing, and I feel that moving from concept to mechanics is more similar to creating a literary or film character than starting from the stats and building upward.

Interesting analogy. I can see that. Starting from the stats and building upward feels more, to me, like linear programming or constraint solving. Or to use an artistic metaphor, it's less like writing literature or poetry and more like sculpting: you chip away at the rock (stat array) until you reveal the thing that's hiding inside of them.

If I were creating characters like literature or poetry I would probably hate point buy and random rolls equally. I'd want to just pick stats as they feel appropriate to the character. That's what I usually do as a DM, after all. Why should my process change just because it's a PC?