D&D 5E Why I Am Starting to Prefer 4d6 Drop the Lowest Over the Default Array.

[Ashkelon]

How high can I boost an int roll of 3 with that method?

To 15, just like with normal point buy. It will cost you 14 points to do it though.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

A given PC who is 5'6" and has exactly one sibling of the opposite sex, two years older or younger, is not boring. Ten such PCs in a row are boring.

This really isn't an appropriate analogy. All the numbers in a normalized array can and will vary. You're not generating PCs with the same height, age, and sibling count every time.

This is why it's fun to sometimes use different stat rolling methods, e.g. 3d6 in order is fun sometimes.

By the same token, you can use different normalization methods or parameters.

Edit: besides, why do you care about the sum of the attribute arrays? 3 + 18 has the same sum as 10 + 11 and 15 + 6, but they play out very differently.

This is a very surprising question coming from you. For at least one of the normalization methods we're talking about here (the card method), the sum of the array is the quantity that is conserved. 3 + 18, 10 + 11, and 15 + 6 are all possible (depending on the deck). I had assumed that when you were talking about "playing in the same section of attribute space", it was this sort of conservation that you were objecting to. But now you seem to be saying that you don't think same-sum arrays are similar. So I honestly don't know what you mean by a "section of attribute space".

Here are some card-generated arrays. Are they in the same section of attribute space? If so, why? If not, why not?

[10, 12, 11, 14, 14, 13]
[13, 13, 12, 11, 14, 11]
[14, 14, 9, 9, 16, 12]
[9, 18, 13, 14, 10, 10]
[10, 13, 10, 13, 15, 13]
[8, 10, 16, 14, 11, 15]
[3, 15, 11, 15, 14, 16]

At any rate, my anecdotal observation from these forums is that the loudest defenders of "Int 8 isn't really very stupid" always seem to be point-buy advocates and/or stat normalizers.

As I alluded before, if there is some sort of divide here, stat normalizers would naturally side with stat randomizers rather than point-buyers -- whatever that side is. They're both in the same boat of being given an 8 and not being able to modify it. If, as you allege, that situation tends to encourage better "playing their scores", then they're both going to do that. And if it incentivizes excuse-making, they're both going to do that.

So I am suspicious, to say the least, of the validity of your anecdotal observation. Have you considered the possibility that you just find it more memorable when the people you don't like do the thing you don't like? Like a teenager convinced that all reckless drivers are old people, or an old person convinced that all reckless drivers are teenagers, when in reality of course there are plenty of reckless drivers of all ages.

 

[Draegn]

I have my players roll for attributes. We have a low of 4 a high of 17, most average between 9 and 13.

 

[FrogReaver]

I just hate that every Fighter or Barbarian ends up stronger than an Ogre and every Wizard is an Einstein.

That's what happens when you have stat increases chosen by players. They always put it in their most useful ability!

And in fact if you look behind the hood it seems the developers assumed this was normal behavior and most everything is pretty balanced around that assumption.

But regardless I feel your pain there, its just I don't think there's an easy fix in a game like this.

 

[FrogReaver]

To 15, just like with normal point buy. It will cost you 14 points to do it though.

I actually think your method will cause weaker characters in general than standard point buy or most rolling methods.

 

[Henry]

The character creation method I want to use in my next campaign:
(1) Choose a race.
(2) Choose a background.
(3) Roll ability scores in order (4d6 drop the lowest).
(4) Choose a class.

I like this! Simple, elegant, doesn't need any special rules, and definitely makes a different party than what usually comes out of character creation.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

This really isn't an appropriate analogy. All the numbers in a normalized array can and will vary. You're not generating PCs with the same height, age, and sibling count every time.

All the numbers in a normalized array will share a metric. That's what makes it normalized. Some of the PCs will have sisters, some will have brothers; some of the brothers will be 28, others will be 37, others will be 41; but there will be a pattern when you know to look for it (age gap is always two years; sibling is always opposite gender).

Besides, the point is that examining samples instead of the distribution is inappropriate. It's not the individual sample within the distribution that is boring. It was inappropriate for you to ask me to identify specific arrays in your set of ten as more boring than the others.

This is a very surprising question coming from you. For at least one of the normalization methods we're talking about here (the card method), the sum of the array is the quantity that is conserved. 3 + 18, 10 + 11, and 15 + 6 are all possible (depending on the deck). I had assumed that when you were talking about "playing in the same section of attribute space", it was this sort of conservation that you were objecting to. But now you seem to be saying that you don't think same-sum arrays are similar. So I honestly don't know what you mean by a "section of attribute space".

The space will be dependent on the normalization method chosen. I already told you that I haven't read Ratskinner's proposal in detail; I just know that I don't share his design goal (normalization).

Here are some card-generated arrays. Are they in the same section of attribute space? If so, why? If not, why not?

[10, 12, 11, 14, 14, 13]
[13, 13, 12, 11, 14, 11]
[14, 14, 9, 9, 16, 12]
[9, 18, 13, 14, 10, 10]
[10, 13, 10, 13, 15, 13]
[8, 10, 16, 14, 11, 15]
[3, 15, 11, 15, 14, 16]

If I don't care about Ratskinner's method enough to read it, what makes you think I'm interested in spending hours reverse-engineering your method from seven samples, like some kind of mathematical puzzle? How about instead, YOU spend a few minutes or hours coding up a web page with a generator for your distribution, which might or might not be using a normalized method or 4d6 drop lowest; and if I can guess whether it's generating normalized samples I'll tell you? (And if I get it wrong, congratulations, you've got a normalized method which will have fooled me, and which would presumably work as well for me as a random method.)

I promise not to look at your source code. I'll make my judgment based purely on the samples that I see in the distribution.

As I alluded before, if there is some sort of divide here, stat normalizers would naturally side with stat randomizers rather than point-buyers -- whatever that side is. They're both in the same boat of being given an 8 and not being able to modify it. If, as you allege, that situation tends to encourage better "playing their scores", then they're both going to do that. And if it incentivizes excuse-making, they're both going to do that.

My experience says your conjecture is false.

So I am suspicious, to say the least, of the validity of your anecdotal observation. Have you considered the possibility that you just find it more memorable when the people you don't like do the thing you don't like? Like a teenager convinced that all reckless drivers are old people, or an old person convinced that all reckless drivers are teenagers, when in reality of course there are plenty of reckless drivers of all ages.

Have you considered the irony inherent in the fact that you're asking me to examine myself for confirmation bias, without first showing evidence that you've examine yourself for confirmation bias? Are you especially interested in contradicting my anecdotal observation because it run contrary to your bias/conjecture?

Anecdotal evidence and conjecture are both unreliable. If you're really interested in this subject, you'll have to do a randomized study. Failing that, an pair of Enworld polls could crudely suffice, if you had a way to correlate the results.

 

[cbwjm]

I remember something like that from the Red Box. I don't think it had a special case for Charisma though.

I'm pretty sure I'm remembering that right. It stood out last time I browsed the RC because I thought you were able to reduce any ability. I might have to reread to refresh my memory though.

Sent from my SM-G925I using EN World mobile app

 

[Ashkelon]

I actually think your method will cause weaker characters in general than standard point buy or most rolling methods.

Statistically they will be stronger than regular point buy and weaker than 4d6 drop lowest. I just did 8 rolls to prove it, but you are welcome to do more testing if you so desire. Here are the results of the rolls, before allocating the 17 remaining points.

9, 13, 6, 13, 10, 9

8, 14, 11, 12, 10, 14

8, 12, 10, 11, 12, 10

14, 10, 8, 11, 14, 10

8, 10, 8, 9, 5, 16

9, 15, 16, 13, 5, 13

16, 14, 13, 12, 12, 9

13, 9, 13, 6, 10, 11

Only one of those rolls ends up worse off than standard point buy, but it also had a pre racial 16 which is not achievable through point buy.

 

[ScuroNotte]

We always did roll 4d6 and drop lowest but some players had terrible rolls, even when they allowed to reroll 1 or 2 more times. Others seemed to have godly roll. One person had the luck of the gods as she always rolled atleast 2 18s while the other rolls were good as well

What we are trying now is to have fixed stats without adding racial modifiers to the scores. That way we still have players taking feats as opposed to always taking ability score bumps. Obviously good stats, but it's a game and we like our characters to have a chance to survive the long haul

18, 15, 15, 14, 13, 12

The DM adjusts the CRs or tweaks the creatures abilities to compensate the higher scores but we don't care as we are having fun