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

[FormerlyHemlock]

The original assertion which put this particular bee in my bonnet as that, with the discard rule, that this makes more high scores. I wanted to point out that, although not untrue itself, this statement leads to the erroneous impression that the discard/re-roll rule skews the results so that high scores become proportionately more common than medium scores; that the lost possibilities of the low scores were re-distributed more to high scores than medium scores.

In fact, when low scores are lost as possibilities, both medium AND high scores become more common in exactly the same proportion!

Since low scores are rarely played anyway, and since high scores seem to be feared by DMs for some reason, I felt the need to point out that the proportion of high to medium scores remains unchanged by the discard rule, so that DMs need not fear it.

Have I explained myself better now?

Yes.

 

[Arial Black]

Actually you claimed that high rolls were probabilisticly the same whether or not rerolls exist. That was false. Your clever change to high and medium rolls remain in the same proportion becomes true. However, high and low rolls are no longer in the same proportion. Same with medium and low rolls.

But yes, overall what you are saying is much better and much more accurate. However, if Dms fear high scores then they will still see more of them even though the proportion of medium to high remains the same.

My position is unchanged, I'm just expressing that position better now.

The fact that the proportion of low to high (or medium) rolls has changed is true but trivial; there are no low rolls being played at all!

When comparing 'rolling stats' to 'rolling stats and discarding low sets', is the latter worse? Does the inclusion of the discard/re-roll mechanic make the game worse in any way? That is what we were talking about before this long digression.

It was asserted that the discard mechanic made for 'more high rolls', and this made it seem as though the discard rule skews the results not only towards high rolls but away from medium rolls, and that is why the discard rule is bad. But it doesn't skew the results more toward high than medium results; it remains in exactly the same ratio as it was before.

The only difference is that low sets are not played. This narrows the gap that DMs have to worry about so they should be in favour of the discard rule, and of course players will be happy not to play low sets.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

When comparing 'rolling stats' to 'rolling stats and discarding low sets', is the latter worse? Does the inclusion of the discard/re-roll mechanic make the game worse in any way? That is what we were talking about before this long digression.

It was asserted that the discard mechanic made for 'more high rolls', and this made it seem as though the discard rule skews the results not only towards high rolls but away from medium rolls, and that is why the discard rule is bad. But it doesn't skew the results more toward high than medium results; it remains in exactly the same ratio as it was before.

The only difference is that low sets are not played. This narrows the gap that DMs have to worry about so they should be in favour of the discard rule, and of course players will be happy not to play low sets.

Yes, it makes the game worse. It hampers creativity, potentially creates a sense of entitlement, and leads to slippery slopes.

 

[FrogReaver]

Since my opening post this has been about rolling stats vs point buy. And why rolled stats are higher. Which is ultimately about why it's a bad decision to ever use point buy when you have the option of rolling.

My position is unchanged, I'm just expressing that position better now.

The fact that the proportion of low to high (or medium) rolls has changed is true but trivial; there are no low rolls being played at all!

When comparing 'rolling stats' to 'rolling stats and discarding low sets', is the latter worse? Does the inclusion of the discard/re-roll mechanic make the game worse in any way? That is what we were talking about before this long digression.

It was asserted that the discard mechanic made for 'more high rolls', and this made it seem as though the discard rule skews the results not only towards high rolls but away from medium rolls, and that is why the discard rule is bad. But it doesn't skew the results more toward high than medium results; it remains in exactly the same ratio as it was before.

The only difference is that low sets are not played. This narrows the gap that DMs have to worry about so they should be in favour of the discard rule, and of course players will be happy not to play low sets.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, it makes the game worse. It hampers creativity,

I disagree. Creativity shines in a multitude of ways. Low stats can is just one way to be creative. You might as well saying that limiting races to the PHB races hampers creativity. The same with races. Limitations in my experience make creativity shine. People will go out of their way to make their elven fighter different from the guy next to them. The limitations set their mind going. Stats are no different.

potentially creates a sense of entitlement,

Entitlement issues are something that come from how someone is raised, not from rolling stats.

and leads to slippery slopes.

That one you're going to have to explain a lot better. I can't even begin to see where you are coming from on this one

 

[Maxperson]

Since my opening post this has been about rolling stats vs point buy. And why rolled stats are higher. Which is ultimately about why it's a bad decision to ever use point buy when you have the option of rolling.

The "ever" is where you run afoul of people here. Given the option of rolling 3d6 straight down, no re-rolls and play what you get, and point buy, people will choose to buy. It's much better than rolling under those conditions, and those conditions do get encountered now and then.

 

[FrogReaver]

No sir, you are expressing a different position now and yet you think your position never changed and you are simply explaining it better. There were inherent and apparent falsehoods in your previous statements. But thank you for realizing that and turning away from the language and terms that did a disservice to the point you wished to make.

My position is unchanged, I'm just expressing that position better now.

The fact that the proportion of low to high (or medium) rolls has changed is true but trivial; there are no low rolls being played at all!

When comparing 'rolling stats' to 'rolling stats and discarding low sets', is the latter worse? Does the inclusion of the discard/re-roll mechanic make the game worse in any way? That is what we were talking about before this long digression.

It was asserted that the discard mechanic made for 'more high rolls', and this made it seem as though the discard rule skews the results not only towards high rolls but away from medium rolls, and that is why the discard rule is bad. But it doesn't skew the results more toward high than medium results; it remains in exactly the same ratio as it was before.

The only difference is that low sets are not played. This narrows the gap that DMs have to worry about so they should be in favour of the discard rule, and of course players will be happy not to play low sets.

 

[Arial Black]

Yes, it makes the game worse. It hampers creativity, potentially creates a sense of entitlement, and leads to slippery slopes.

This is where we get to opinion instead of fact, and it's okay if we disagree.

I do disagree that the discard mechanic hampers creativity. That mechanic does not eliminate low scores; it eliminates low sets!

Those non-low sets can certainly have low individual ability scores, and the creativity you mention is served just as well than without the discard rule; even better in my opinion since it is easier to have a coherent character with one or a few disadvantages than it is for many or all low scores.

The discard mechanic (which is the official way to roll stats in 3E BTW) eliminates unplayably low sets while still allowing low individual scores to get your role-playing teeth into.

(The 'entitlement' and 'slippery slope' arguments are bogus, BTW.)

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

This is where we get to opinion instead of fact, and it's okay if we disagree.

Agreed.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Since my opening post this has been about rolling stats vs point buy. And why rolled stats are higher. Which is ultimately about why it's a bad decision to ever use point buy when you have the option of rolling.

Eh... maybe, in some circumstances. What you're really trying to do is maximize your odds of playing a fun character. I can imagine situations in which point buy gives me a better chance of playing a fun character than rolled stats do. For example, at a table which bans Moon Druids, Necromancers, feats, and multiclassing and never has character deaths (so you'll be playing the same PC for years at a time), low stats are more costly (can't just play a Moon Druid or a Sharpshooter fighter or Necromancer) and high stats are less valuable (no multiclassing synergies), so point buy is relatively more attractive to me because rolling stats has been made unrewarding.