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

[Maxperson]

...but it does remove the key balancing element of random scores.

I totally get that most people use random scores because they want to be "surprised" by the character they get. That's fine, perfectly cromulent. The problem comes in when we start rejecting only specific kinds of rolls.

There's no problem at all, really. The difference stats make is really minor and doesn't have to be balanced. If the little bit of balance differential is a problem for you, either don't roll at all, or don't allow re-rolls.

So no, it's not "cheating" in the sense of "secretly violating a rule." But it is "cheating" in the sense of "milking the system for an unfair advantage." Plying your DM's heartstrings to remove the balancing effect that's supposed--mathematically--to keep rolling from being completely superior to point-buy.

Would you prefer the term "exploitative"?

It's neither "milking the system", nor "exploitative." It can't be since the DM has changed the rules to allow it.

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

I let the players and myself all roll 4d6, drop lowest, in order. This generates a set of arrays anyone can use (so 2 people can both pick the same one). If none of them suits your fancy, you can do point buy.

HP are fixed per level however.

This is what i'd do if/when DM-ing. Or a variant of it. I'd let each player roll 2-3 character ability arrays using 4d6 drop lowest and then allow the player to pick which one would be used. Not sure if i'd allow for the same array being used more then once or twice though. For me it is the uniqueness of flavor that comes from everyone having different attribute scores that gives the system its charm.

As for the OP question..... here are six arrays i just rolled (the first 5 using a random number generator and the last one using my trusted pouch of dice):
-11,15,12,11,14,11
-14,11,15,11,7,10
-11,12,13,13,7,11
-16,14,14,12,13,7
-14,12,10,16,11,9
-9,6,11,11,15,14 (alas, my dice have failed me)

But joking aside, i would play all of these except maybe the 3rd one, as that one is really your average Joe (depending on the edition somewhat). But if i want to play a particular concept (i.e. more MAD like character), i might drop more of them in favor of others. Like picking 1 and 4 over 2, 5 and 6.

 

[Maxperson]

Semantics, really? Come back with a real argument some time.

Real definitions vs. fabricated definitions are not semantics. You just said that because I'm stating that an apple is not a rat like you are claiming, it's semantics. How about you come up with a real argument in the first place.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

There's no problem at all, really. The difference stats make is really minor and doesn't have to be balanced. If the little bit of balance differential is a problem for you, either don't roll at all, or don't allow re-rolls.

If you find the difference stats make to be minor, I don't think you're really playing the game as other people.

It's neither "milking the system", nor "exploitative." It can't be since the DM has changed the rules to allow it.

Again with the semantics.

 

[Maxperson]

If you find the difference stats make to be minor, I don't think you're really playing the game as other people.

Of course I am. I haven't played D&D solo since I was in junior high school. Seriously, though, it just doesn't make a big enough different to bother with. If all the PCs have high scores, you might have to add in an extra creature or two, but that's about it. DCs already range to the point where high stat PCs are challenged.

Again with the semantics.

Yeah, you're right. Saying that the empire state building is not a car is semantics. I think you need to learn what semantics is. It's not a disagreement with something that's blatantly incorrect.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It's neither "milking the system", nor "exploitative." It can't be since the DM has changed the rules to allow it.

Being able to persuade the DM to change the rules cannot, even in principle, be exploitative?

Clearly you've never had a DM's spouse or romantic partner as a player in your games. If that ain't exploitative, I don't know what is--even with legitimately good DMs. Now who's arguing a definition that's blatantly false? "exploit: 1. to utilize, especially for profit; turn to practical account; 2. to use selfishly for one's own ends."

 

[Maxperson]

Being able to persuade the DM to change the rules cannot, even in principle, be exploitative?

It's possible, I suppose, but the DM would have to be clueless. I as an experienced player could exploit a new DM by taking advantage of my knowledge and his lack of knowledge. The vast majority of DMs are not new, though. It takes very little time for a DM to get up to speed on things like that.

Clearly you've never had a DM's spouse or romantic partner as a player in your games. If that ain't exploitative, I don't know what is--even with legitimately good DMs.

Sure I have and I didn't show any favoritism at all. It wouldn't have been fair to the other players if I did.

The issue is that you declared the entire process as exploitative, and not just the few isolated examples that you came come up with. Changing the rules on rolling stats is not inherently exploitative at all. You have to add in outside exploitation like you just did.

 

[Maxperson]

Now who's arguing a definition that's blatantly false? "exploit: 1. to utilize, especially for profit; turn to practical account; 2. to use selfishly for one's own ends."

Still you. There is nothing about changing the stat rolling rules that is inherently exploitative. It's neither of those definitions unless you add in outside circumstances like the experienced player and the newbie DM or the romantic partner addition you just tossed in.

Edit: AND they actually try to exploit the DM.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Of course I am. I haven't played D&D solo since I was in junior high school. Seriously, though, it just doesn't make a big enough different to bother with. If all the PCs have high scores, you might have to add in an extra creature or two, but that's about it. DCs already range to the point where high stat PCs are challenged.



Yeah, you're right. Saying that the empire state building is not a car is semantics. I think you need to learn what semantics is. It's not a disagreement with something that's blatantly incorrect.

And now, semantics over semantics. Wow.

 

[Oofta]

And now, semantics over semantics. Wow.

I've given up on this. Stats don't matter, except when they do. Characters with wildly different stats are virtually identical and if you claim otherwise you're just being a shallow power gamer.

Whatever.