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

[Maxperson]

And now, semantics over semantics. Wow.

Semantics. The last refuge of someone without a valid argument. How about you respond to the argument that has you stumped with a valid counter argument?

 

[Maxperson]

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.

I haven't made any of those arguments, and you still haven't responded to me on...

You're going to have to explain to me how telling me that I should be using point buy or arrays instead of rolling because it's unfair to the players is A) not judgmental, and B) not telling me that I'm wrong to do what I do, because their way is better, AND how telling people that the aren't roleplaying as well over not playing low stats is A) not judgmental, and B) not telling you that you're wrong for not playing low stats, because their way is better.

It seems fairly equivalent to me.

 

[Oofta]

I haven't made any of those arguments, and you still haven't responded to me on...

Why should I respond? Stats matter for point buy when they irk you for some reason - like when everybody has an 8 int. You didn't explain why, so I can only suppose that you think some people should have low scores significantly above 8 and others should have low scores significantly below 8.

I point out the differences between two characters and you say it doesn't matter because by one narrow, narrow slice of the overall picture they can be similar.

Rolling for stats by RAW practically guarantees that some people in the group will have characters with more options and better overall capabilities. It's like saying that a Yugo is the equivalent of a Bentley because the both have four wheels. If I had to draw lots to see which car I drove, I would not be happy driving the Yugo. Even if it was my favorite color.

At this point I don't even know what you are arguing. I like it when player's characters start with roughly equal footing so I use point buy. I think rolling for ability scores by RAW is inherently flawed and unfair which is why only a small percentage of people actually use it. That's it.

 

[Maxperson]

Why should I respond?

Because it's true and you very incorrectly called me out for a False Equivalence that never happened. You called me out, you should back it up.

Stats matter for point buy when they irk you for some reason - like when everybody has an 8 int. You didn't explain why, so I can only suppose that you think some people should have low scores significantly above 8 and others should have low scores significantly below 8.

I like things to make sense. Everyone having an 8 int is nonsense. It doesn't happen in a world that has any measure of realism. In D&D a game where that happens is too unrealistic for me to enjoy. Nonsense like that would ruin my fun. Point buy and arrays are one of the things that will cause me to walk away from a game.

Rolling for stats by RAW practically guarantees that some people in the group will have characters with more options and better overall capabilities. It's like saying that a Yugo is the equivalent of a Bentley because the both have four wheels. If I had to draw lots to see which car I drove, I would not be happy driving the Yugo. Even if it was my favorite color.

What do I care if I drive a car that is cheaper than yours? I don't. I don't play the game with stat envy.

 

[Icharbezol]

I don't know if this matches other DMs' experience or not. Most of the time I have run games, for a variety of groups, the point buy characters average out higher than the rolled characters, as maybe one player will end up with a character that doesn't have almost all tens or twelves in everything if all are rolling in front of me and frequently their ability scores are not even that good.

That changes only if they have rolled away from the table, and out of my sight. Then they tend to bring characters to the table that invariably start with an 18-20 is their main ability score for class and nothing less than a 14 in everything else.

I stopped letting people roll at home and bring premade characters to the table before my current campaign started. They almost all wanted to use point buy. Except one. That one continued to try rolling at home for my most recent campaign, telling me that someone there witnessed his rolls.

I found out that he used a die method that he prefers for his home game to generate ability scores: 4d6, drop lowest, reroll 1s and 2s. I've shut down that method of rolling as unacceptable at my table. He rolled in front of me, and got nothing higher than 14 and several sub-10 scores. I said take that, or use the standard array.

So yeah, I'd concur with the cheating thing. I just don't think it's as common for people to roll characters with all ability scores at 14+ as they say they do.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Try this one on for size, Maxperson. You said...

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

Meaning these things cannot even in principle be exploitative. Ever. It's flat-out impossible; you explicitly said "it can't be." I then responded that, actually, yes it can be exploitative, and gave an example I had personally seen (spouse/SO plying the DM). You then responded with:

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.

Moved goalposts. I was saying that something can be used exploitatively. Things that can be exploited do not have to be--exploitation is a choice, not an automatic event, just like (say) abuse of political power is a choice that doesn't have to be made (but oh-so-often does get made). Your response was, "Well just because you INSERTED exploitation into it doesn't make it ALWAYS exploitative." But I wasn't saying that. I was saying that the ability to ply the DM to override the rules "is exploitative" because it ENABLES exploitation. Whether that be pushing the DM's known buttons ("I know he loves mounts...I bet I could get him to let me have the Find Steed spell as a Ranger..."), leveraging external social connections (spouse/SO/best friend), bribery (food, alcohol, money, favors), or whatever other means of exploitation.

I ollied outy because I saw no point in arguing when you were going to make shifts like that. But if you're going to throw around accusations at [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION] or [MENTION=59096]thecasualoblivion[/MENTION] maybe you should remove the plank from your own eye before addressing the speck in your neighbor's.

 

[Maxperson]

I ollied outy because I saw no point in arguing when you were going to make shifts like that.

The only shift happened in your own mind.

Meaning these things cannot even in principle be exploitative. Ever. It's flat-out impossible; you explicitly said "it can't be." I then responded that, actually, yes it can be exploitative, and gave an example I had personally seen (spouse/SO plying the DM). You then responded with:

Correct. There is absolutely nothing inherently exploitative about changing the rolling rules. Some outside exploitation such as a girlfriend has to happen. That girlfriend happening doesn't make the rules change exploitative, it makes the girlfriend exploitative.

Moved goalposts. I was saying that something can be used exploitatively. Things that can be exploited do not have to be--exploitation is a choice, not an automatic event, just like (say) abuse of political power is a choice that doesn't have to be made (but oh-so-often does get made). Your response was, "Well just because you INSERTED exploitation into it doesn't make it ALWAYS exploitative." But I wasn't saying that. I was saying that the ability to ply the DM to override the rules "is exploitative" because it ENABLES exploitation. Whether that be pushing the DM's known buttons ("I know he loves mounts...I bet I could get him to let me have the Find Steed spell as a Ranger..."), leveraging external social connections (spouse/SO/best friend), bribery (food, alcohol, money, favors), or whatever other means of exploitation.

No goalposts were moved. You and I gave examples of outside exploitative things using a rules change as a tool. That can't make the rules change itself exploitative.

Of course, by your logic rolling 4d6 straight down with no re-rolls is exploitative, because the girlfriend could persuade her boyfriend to allow it and roll better stats than a point buy or array. No, wait! Point buys and arrays are exploitative because the girlfriend convinced her boyfriend to allow it instead of using rolls and now she can design the exact character she wants.

Every type of stat generation is exploitative!!!!

Only not. None of them are because there is nothing inherently exploitative in any of them. Again, it's all the girlfriend or other outside influence that is doing the exploiting.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I don't know if this matches other DMs' experience or not. Most of the time I have run games, for a variety of groups, the point buy characters average out higher than the rolled characters, as maybe one player will end up with a character that doesn't have almost all tens or twelves in everything if all are rolling in front of me and frequently their ability scores are not even that good.

That changes only if they have rolled away from the table, and out of my sight. Then they tend to bring characters to the table that invariably start with an 18-20 is their main ability score for class and nothing less than a 14 in everything else.

I stopped letting people roll at home and bring premade characters to the table before my current campaign started. They almost all wanted to use point buy. Except one. That one continued to try rolling at home for my most recent campaign, telling me that someone there witnessed his rolls.

I found out that he used a die method that he prefers for his home game to generate ability scores: 4d6, drop lowest, reroll 1s and 2s. I've shut down that method of rolling as unacceptable at my table. He rolled in front of me, and got nothing higher than 14 and several sub-10 scores. I said take that, or use the standard array.

So yeah, I'd concur with the cheating thing. I just don't think it's as common for people to roll characters with all ability scores at 14+ as they say they do.

The bold part is bizarre. If all your players are rolling tens and twelve for every attribute using 5E rules (4d6 drop lowest), then they are all rolling in the bottom 5% of 5E PCs. All of them.

There's something wrong with the table you're rolling on.

Sure, your players are probably cheating, and I'd kick them out for doing that--but honestly I'd be even more worried about the poltergeist in your house.

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

After a day or so of further thinking, i came out with another reason i don't like point buy (or lowering some stats to have higher scores in other)..... ever since PB came around (probably around 3E for me), i have never played a character with more then 14 constitution....... at all.... ever.... nor i ever will unless i play a barbarian in 5E, which i am yet to get a good read on. The "optimizer" in me just can't bring himself to "sacrifice" "buy points" (ugh, such gamy terms all of these) for an ability that "matters" less then the "primary" one.

I won't go into the whole "dump stat" thingy. Yeah, i can see why some would consider "everyone has an 8 in Int" is bad thing. The only thing with me is i wouldn't call it a "realism thing" but rather an "immersion thing".

Does this make me a powergaming hypocrite? I sure hope so.
Should i go for a pure blood roleplayer and "gimp" my PC's buy "buying" average stats in all abilities? Meh..... can't say......... i'll make sure to tell any of my offspring (if i ever have them) to be very careful how they spend their "buy points" at inception though

 

[Arial Black]

Semantics, really?

My point exactly!

The term 'cheating' is not only inaccurate where re-rolling is part of the system or part of the PC creation rules used at that table, but it carries a strong negative connotation, and that is why the word 'cheating' is being used; to make re-rolling sound 'wrong' somehow, regardless of the facts.

It's a dirty trick.