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

[thecasualoblivion]

And yet there would be very little chance of them all being 8. At least one of them would have been something better than Forest Gump.

If every character had the same lowest stat, as far as I'm concerned it results in the same thing.

It's a disadvantage the array, point buy, and rolling to taste all share. If a specific concept or mechanical optimization is being built toward, the six stats will be arranged from highest to lowest in the same order regardless of method.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

What I want from stat generation is three basic things:

1. Power balance where one PC isn't more powerful than another
2. Stat generation results in characters that live up to player expectations
3. Cheating isn't required to assure 1 and 2

Rolling 4d6 drop lowest arrange to taste doesn't really accomplish any of those things, though #2 is a matter of taste.

 

[Oofta]

Yep. Heresy. People put their highest score into their primary ability and the lowest into the ability they least care about.
Not going to change unless you force random characters.

 

[Maxperson]

If every character had the same lowest stat, as far as I'm concerned it results in the same thing.

It's a disadvantage the array, point buy, and rolling to taste all share. If a specific concept or mechanical optimization is being built toward, the six stats will be arranged from highest to lowest in the same order regardless of method.

I disagree a bit. If the lowest stat has a varying range, at least that could better mimic a real mix of people. People of low-average intelligence gather all the time. The rest of their stats could easily be better. It's close to how things would work than a bunch of Forest Gumps with the exact same 8 int.

 

[Maxperson]

What I want from stat generation is three basic things:

1. Power balance where one PC isn't more powerful than another
2. Stat generation results in characters that live up to player expectations
3. Cheating isn't required to assure 1 and 2

Rolling 4d6 drop lowest arrange to taste doesn't really accomplish any of those things, though #2 is a matter of taste.

The vast majority of games already have #3. House rules and point buy/arrays cover both of 1 and 2 nicely. There is no cheating required.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

The vast majority of games already have #3. House rules and point buy/arrays cover both of 1 and 2 nicely. There is no cheating required.

Depends on your definition of cheating. For the purpose of goal #3, "house rules" as you've called them in this thread amount to cheating(though only for the purpose of goal #3) and in almost all cases don't assure #1.

 

[Maxperson]

Depends on your definition of cheating. For the purpose of goal #3, "house rules" as you've called them in this thread amount to cheating(though only for the purpose of goal #3) and in almost all cases don't assure #1.

You don't get to declare legitimate rules as cheating and be correct, though. Cheating is by definition, breaking the rules and no house rule has ever done that. The game gives the DM the ability to change any rule, so he cannot be cheating when he does so.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

You don't get to declare legitimate rules as cheating and be correct, though. Cheating is by definition, breaking the rules and no house rule has ever done that. The game gives the DM the ability to change any rule, so he cannot be cheating when he does so.

You are using a much different sense of the word cheating in this specific instance. For my purposes, the method should work. If the method of used honestly has a high failure rate and some sort of "cheat" is necessary IMO it's a bad method. If you have to discard the results a lot of the time, why are you doing it that way in the first place?

Personal taste is a dodge. Finding dog poop tasty could be a matter of taste. People might be ok with it, but it remains a bad system.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

To put it more specifically, I refuse to accept that a table being ok with a bad system(one where the results need to be discarded/fudged/cheated to generate acceptable results) has any real meaning to anybody outside that table.

 

[Oofta]

I disagree a bit. If the lowest stat has a varying range, at least that could better mimic a real mix of people. People of low-average intelligence gather all the time. The rest of their stats could easily be better. It's close to how things would work than a bunch of Forest Gumps with the exact same 8 int.

So in order for it to be a "legitimate" game you have to have some people that are mentally or physically handicapped? While others in the group are above average in every stat?

Most people (whether or not they are adventurers) are going to have ability scores between 8 and 12 because the normal scale is 3-18 with 3d6 determining scores. If you want to mimic reality you would probably want more of a bell curve and do something like roll 5d6 and drop the lowest and the highest. I'd have to do some simulations to see how that matches up though.

Forest Gump was smart to run from battle, adventurers with extremely low intelligence probably wouldn't survive for long. Adventurers are supposed to be heroes, not zeroes.

<rant>
The other pet peeve I have (which is related) is that in the group of all 8 intelligence, the group will still make decisions just as intelligently as if they were all 20s. Most people just ignore low intelligence in play unless it's a skill check.
</rant>