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

[KahlessNestor]

For the same reason that all character races in the RAW may not be available in the game world, or published equipment may not exist. As I said, if someone is adamant about it, it'll go up to a vote. Never had that issue, though, in either direction - when using arrays, no one said "but I want to roll" nor vice versa. Never used point buy, hence not mentioned.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

World building is completely under the purview of the DM, granted, but stat generation isn't world building. If the PHB is stating you may use random or array, or, at DM discretion point buy, that doesn't seem to be any more up to the DM than a character's spell selection is.

Unless there is a meta concern (like in open play to prevent cheating), or DM custom generation, and if it's acknowledged that all options provided are roughly equal, then I'm not sure why it is the purvuew of the DM, against what RAW says.

Sent from my SM-G900P using EN World mobile app

 

[Oofta]

How do you know you'll be playing said character for hundreds of hours, unless you're in a no-PC-death campaign? For all you know you might not be playing it for hundreds of minutes, never mind hours, before it dies the death and you have to start char-gen all over again.

I always assume my character is going to survive. Why would I write up a character that I assume is going to die?

When I DM, I don't care if you want to do minor tweaks to your character or retire/replace if they aren't working. I've just never wanted to retire a character before the end of the campaign, nor have I written up suicidal characters.

I don't plan for my characters to die unless they have elven blood. Then they're cursed and will die before they get past third level. One day, Bink the Elf, by Grabthar's Hammer you will survive to see double digits!

* Random rollers are (usually) more flexible with their character concepts (or in my own case, just don't take it all that seriously and are in to entertain rather than win)
* Random rollers (usually) accept that just like in real life some people are simply better than others in lots of ways - we're not all equal-but-different
* Random rollers (usually) realize that not all characters will have the same likelihood of winning the Most Valuable Character award, though everyone has a chance
* Random rollers (usually) realize that D&D is to large extent a game of luck both in initial char-gen and in what happens afterwards, and that good luck in the field means far far more in the long run than bad luck during char-gen.

Lan-"it's not a good game unless I've used every die in the bag"-efan

So more "if you were a better person you would prefer random rolling because it's what I prefer."

Why is it that stating that I want to play a character that is slightly better than the average commoner, able to contribute to the team on roughly the same level in my chosen role as the other players such an issue?

These threads all seem to come back to the same idea that stating that I want to have decent stats is like saying that all kittens should be tied to live hand grenades and then thrown into the air to watch them explode. I don't get it.

 

[ccs]

I don't plan for my characters to die unless they have elven blood. Then they're cursed and will die before they get past third level. One day, Bink the Elf, by Grabthar's Hammer you will survive to see double digits!

Huh, I have that same problem when I roll up a cleric.

 

[SkidAce]

I tend to use the 4d6 assign anywhere. You get 1 roll. If you don't like it, then you can use the standard array. It gives a nice floor of competance while also giving you a negative. But then I have been DMing newbies. I lije the idea of running with what you roll.

Sent from my SM-G900P using EN World mobile app

Been doing this for quite a while now.

 

[ccs]

Just wondering why you think the DM "has to" determine which method, and why everyone has to hse the same method? If all the methods mentioned are roughly equivalent, and, as some one mentioned, the PHB RAW actually makes it the PLAYER'S choice, why do you think DM whim applies? Unless, of course, the DM is using some custom method of their own?

Sent from my SM-G900P using EN World mobile app

Because DM > rules. Always has been, always will be.

 

[KahlessNestor]

But if 4d6 drop 1 = standard array mechanically, then why should it matter what the DM likes? They're the same, and the PHB gives the decision to the player (just like spell selection). How come "player agency" doesn’t apply? But then I have never really bought into DM>rules. Everyone should be using the same rules.

Sent from my SM-G900P using EN World mobile app

 

[Soul Stigma]

But if 4d6 drop 1 = standard array mechanically, then why should it matter what the DM likes? They're the same, and the PHB gives the decision to the player (just like spell selection). How come "player agency" doesn’t apply? But then I have never really bought into DM>rules. Everyone should be using the same rules.

Sent from my SM-G900P using EN World mobile app

Table rules exist throughout the land (and maybe seas - very possible people play D&D and other RPGs on ships). What you buy into is cool for you, but you'll have to accept that tables, games and campaigns differ. Arrays and modules for "official" play, dice and home brew for play at my table. If you don't like that, that's fine.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

 

[TheCosmicKid]

* Random rollers (usually) accept that just like in real life some people are simply better than others in lots of ways - we're not all equal-but-different

In real life, you don't get to choose your race, sex, background, or class, but random rollers (usually) still allow this. You also don't get to rearrange your abilities so you can decide what you excel at, but random rollers (usually) allow this too. The conventional randomly-rolled character creation system is not realistic and is not intended to be. It is still, like the standard array and point buy, aimed at allowing players to produce characters of their choice. It simply introduces more variance and allows for some surprises. And I'm not saying that's a bad thing for every player or every group. I myself like surprises, and prefer a normalized random method. But I am urging you to reconsider the validity of this "realism" line of thinking. Unless you yourself do 3d6 in order, roll for race, sex, etc., which is completely fine in its own right, but means you're no longer speaking for what random rollers (usually) do.

Furthermore, if we are to think about realism, let's entertain the idea that a group of adventurers might realistically be closer to equal-but-different than you assert. Adventurers are not a random sample of the population. They're a self-selected elite in an extremely demanding line of work. In terms of abilities, they're probably comparable to a special forces unit or a professional sports team. Yeah, sports teams have some second- and third-stringers, but even those guys are hardly what you'd call "average".

* Random rollers (usually) realize that D&D is to large extent a game of luck both in initial char-gen and in what happens afterwards, and that good luck in the field means far far more in the long run than bad luck during char-gen.

Good luck during char-gen mathematically matters more in the long run, and increasingly so the longer the long run goes. If Alice rolls an 18 Strength and Bob rolls a 14 Strength, the odds that Bob is going to roll 2 points higher than Alice on every significant Strength attack and check and save and damage roll are small and ever-diminishing as they keep having to make these rolls.

But let's take a step back. Why is it a fact that "D&D is to a large extent a game of luck... in initial char-gen" which players ought to "realize"? As has been discussed, even the default character generation rules quite readily allow for a character to be created with no random elements at all. And if they didn't, it would still be the work of moments to homebrew variants that work this way, and the game would still be D&D. It seems here more like you're asserting what you personally want D&D to be rather than what D&D is, and that you ought to realize that D&D is bigger and broader and more open to diverse playstyles than you give it credit for.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

But if 4d6 drop 1 = standard array mechanically...

False premise. Standard array is worse than 4d6 drop lowest, on average. Somewhere around the 40th percentile I think. I think that was rather brilliant on WotC's part, in a way--it makes players who roll for stats feel pretty good about their rolls, because they're usually better than what they think is the average.

It also tends to create accusations of "cheating" on the part of those who don't know the math (see this thread for examples) and just see the results, but eh, what can you do?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

In real life, you don't get to choose your race, sex, background, or class *snip*

Isn't this a controversial statement nowadays? At least on the Internet.

If class = profession, you've always been able to choose that.

Furthermore, if we are to think about realism, let's entertain the idea that a group of adventurers might realistically be closer to equal-but-different than you assert. Adventurers are not a random sample of the population. They're a self-selected elite in an extremely demanding line of work. In terms of abilities, they're probably comparable to a special forces unit or a professional sports team. Yeah, sports teams have some second- and third-stringers, but even those guys are hardly what you'd call "average".

A stat array that includes a 14 is hardly "average" for a human (e.g. 14, 12, 10, 10, 11, 9), despite the complaints of certain players (some on this thread) who look enviously on even-higher rolls. It's quite rare for 4d6 drop lowest to produce an array which is below the MM human average (e.g. Cultist), and even in those cases, the PCs in question rapidly gain ability far beyond the human average. By the time you're 5th level, you're far superior to a Cultist or a Guard--you have a place on that professional sports team now.

But let's take a step back. Why is it a fact that "D&D is to a large extent a game of luck... in initial char-gen" which players ought to "realize"? As has been discussed, even the default character generation rules quite readily allow for a character to be created with no random elements at all. And if they didn't, it would still be the work of moments to homebrew variants that work this way, and the game would still be D&D. It seems here more like you're asserting what you personally want D&D to be rather than what D&D is, and that you ought to realize that D&D is bigger and broader and more open to diverse playstyles than you give it credit for.

Because some other player might decide to roll stats, and if you don't realize that D&D is about luck, then judging by this thread and by other comments from point-buy advocates and stat-rollers, his rolls may ruin your fun. You yourself just mentioned a hypothetical Alice vs. Bob situation which is all about envy, "If Alice rolls an 18 Strength and Bob rolls a 14 Strength, the odds that Bob is going to roll 2 points higher than Alice on every significant Strength attack and check and save and damage roll are small and ever-diminishing as they keep having to make these rolls." If Bob got a Strength of 14 using standard array, does the issue go away? No, Alice still has that differential, and to some people, that's a huge problem. People who can't accept stat variations are never happy with letting people use the default character generation rules (roll or standard array, your choice). They seem to always feel the need to force everyone into the same normalized bucket.

Now, if everyone at the table wants normalization, then no forcing is necessary and you can just use the default rules, or point buy, and it will turn out okay.

But it sure helps if you have the attitude Lanefan suggests, because then you won't get upset if some other players at the table chooses to roll the dice like the PHB says he or she can.

 

[FrogReaver]

Nothing has been added here for a while.

Point buy (my preference):

• I come up with characters when we start talking about the campaign.
• I don't want to rely on random luck to see if I can play the character I want to play.
• I don't really care what my stats are as long as they are reasonable and on an even footing with other characters in the group. Not because it's a competition, but because I want a chance to contribute to the team at the same level as the rest of the group.
• I don't see the point to randomizing stats for a character I'm going to play for hundreds of hours

Random Rollers:

• Like to let the dice determine the character
• If the dice give a character you don't like (or don't grow attached to) find a way to die.
• If you don't like random characters it's because you aren't good enough skillful enough player to come up with an awesome character if you have below average stats.

I don't think your comparison does justice to those that prefer random rolls. There's rarely a need to find a way to die in a randomly rolled game because every DM I've seen allows rerolls for stats they feel are too low. Besides the few buttholes here that try to pressure others into their preferred playstyle by acting like they are less skilled or a bad role player, that line of thinking isn't something universal. Most people don't think you are a bad player or role play bad because you don't like rolling for stats. (Also if I recall I got told by the point buyers that I was a bad role player because I liked having high off stats).

I think a better facet of this discussion is how much variance in starting stats are you okay with? For example if there was a character that had 2 more in every stat than you would that be too far from equal footing?

 

[Satyrn]

Besides the few . . . that try to pressure others into their preferred playstyle by acting like they are less skilled or a bad role player, that line of thinking isn't something universal.

Sigh. I know, eh?

It gets hard to see past those people. It's tiring.

 

[Satyrn]

I think a better facet of this discussion is how much variance in starting stats are you okay with? For example if there was a character that had 2 more in every stat than you would that be too far from equal footing?

That definitely feels like too great a difference for me, whatever side of that variance I was on. It's just altogether better.

So what if it was 2 more in every stat, except one where it was 2 less? I think I'd be cool with that, so long as that one stat mattered.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Isn't this a controversial statement nowadays? At least on the Internet.

If class = profession, you've always been able to choose that.

Don't split hairs over nothing. I am fairly confident you do not deny the following proposition: "The default D&D character generation rules, and the rules used by most tables that roll for scores, allow you to choose aspects of your character which in real life are beyond the individual's control." The implication of this is that realism is not the sole goal of these rules, and that other considerations may override the dictates of realism, which renders realism alone a poor justification for doing things a certain way.

You yourself just mentioned a hypothetical Alice vs. Bob situation which is all about envy, "If Alice rolls an 18 Strength and Bob rolls a 14 Strength, the odds that Bob is going to roll 2 points higher than Alice on every significant Strength attack and check and save and damage roll are small and ever-diminishing as they keep having to make these rolls."

The hypothetical had nothing to do with envy. I didn't once mention Bob being envious. My point was mathematical, not emotional. @Lanefan made a claim about where good luck matters the most. I explained that his claim was incorrect. Good luck on a single roll at the beginning of the campaign reduces the need for good luck on dozens or hundreds of rolls over the entirety of the campaign.

People who can't accept stat variations are never happy with letting people use the default character generation rules (roll or standard array, your choice). They seem to always feel the need to force everyone into the same normalized bucket.

You are here ranting about the sins of a faceless "they", which I find is a manner of speech seldom worth serious regard. If, on the other hand, somebody were to point out that you apparently aren't happy with letting people use the standard array, and seem to feel the need to force everyone into the same randomized bucket, then they would be referring to real and specific statements made by a real and specific person, and would merit more attention.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

I find this quite mean, do you ever give your PCs genuine rewards? Why do you think that setting up your players to fail is a good thing? I wonder if your players having problems being heroic is you intentionally making it more difficult than it should be.

I'm confused...what's mean about it? I suppose if this sort of thing happened all the time...ok. But that sort of thing is few and far between. And when it does, there's nothing stopping the player from trying to purchase it, trade for it, or butter up the owner in hopes of getting to keep it.

Setting up my players to fail? Uh...yeah! The DM should *always* be setting up the players to "fail" at an adventure/task...otherwise what's the point of even playing or rolling dice? I always assume my players PC's will 'fail' at most things. This usually doesn't happen, however, as when the poop hits the spinning blades, they work well enough together 9/10 to pull it out of the fire just in time.

Er...unless you mean "set up to fail" in some other sense? Like, hmmm...pre-deciding multiple things that will happen at the end of an adventure, regardless of what the players and their PC's did? In that case...no, I don't do that. That goes back to the whole "why bother playing?" thing. No point in playing a game involving player choice and random dice rolls if I have already "fixed the board" so to speak.

My players are heroic enough. Heroics and altruism varies based on campaign and game system. When playing Basic D&D they tend to be either "full-on heroes" or "full-on adventuring mercenaries". With 5e, they've tended towards the heroic side of things. With SUPERS!, obviously it's almost totally heroics. Sci-Fi games almost always puts them in a "mercantile/privateer" mindset for some reason. If I want a more "realistic behaviour" type of game, I'll whip out Call of Cthulhu or maybe my "Zombocalypse" game/setting (uses the Masterbook system...originally I was using Top Secret|S.I.)

With that said...one player just can not do "heroic guy" at all. One can pull it off 'most of the time'. The others in the group are totally hit or miss, and usually don't stick with it (or the character). Different strokes and all that. Play to your strengths, right?

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Lylandra]

The only reasons why I don't like point buy are 1) Dump Stats and 2) Too same-y stats in the group.

I do like the "each player rolls 4d6 drop lowest and then everyone picks one of them, duplicats possible" idea. The only reasons why I didn't like random rolls were balance and fairness issues. And they can be addressed by giving everyone the same choice.

 

[pming]

Hiya.

I can't help but notice that you cut off the sentence after two words rather than acknowledge that the writers very explicitly had in mind people who "don't like the idea of randomly determining ability scores". But that's not really the important thing. You did quote the important thing: the word "you". Have you realized what this paragraph is actually saying? It's addressing the player, not the DM. The writers didn't just have in mind players who don't like random scores: the rules as written, the "default" which seems to be so important to you, clearly state that the decision to roll ability scores or use the standard array is in the individual player's hands.

Ok. I can see that now. I guess it was my old DM'ness when reading any rpg; the assumption that the DM is the decider of all things, so to speak. When reading rules and two or more options show up for any given thing, the DM is the one that decides which to use. But re-reading the paragraph with the "Player Goggles" on, yup. I have to agree with you. The player is the one to decide (well, unless overruled by the DM...but that would fall into "changing the rules" more than "adjudicating" them).

Game on!

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Oofta]

False premise. Standard array is worse than 4d6 drop lowest, on average. Somewhere around the 40th percentile I think. I think that was rather brilliant on WotC's part, in a way--it makes players who roll for stats feel pretty good about their rolls, because they're usually better than what they think is the average.

It also tends to create accusations of "cheating" on the part of those who don't know the math (see this thread for examples) and just see the results, but eh, what can you do?

Depends on how you come up with your numbers. Since the point buy system doesn't allow for numbers outside of 8-15, you will ultimately be putting your thumb on the scale one way or another when you decide what the cost of an 18 or a 3 is.

If you limit random rolls to 8-15, it's close (within a point or two).

The only thing rolling for stats guarantees is that the results will be random. In a fairly significant percentage of groups the difference will be significant. Some characters will have better than you could have gotten with point buy, some will be worse.

 

[Zardnaar]

The only reasons why I don't like point buy are 1) Dump Stats and 2) Too same-y stats in the group.

I do like the "each player rolls 4d6 drop lowest and then everyone picks one of them, duplicats possible" idea. The only reasons why I didn't like random rolls were balance and fairness issues. And they can be addressed by giving everyone the same choice.

We used something like this in 3E except you can pick any of the stats rolled not just everyone gets the same ones.

 

[Oofta]

The only reasons why I don't like point buy are 1) Dump Stats and 2) Too same-y stats in the group.

I do like the "each player rolls 4d6 drop lowest and then everyone picks one of them, duplicats possible" idea. The only reasons why I didn't like random rolls were balance and fairness issues. And they can be addressed by giving everyone the same choice.

Wouldn't that make them even more "samey"?

Although I don't see that in groups I've played with - nor have I cared. There are so many ways to vary characters, stats are one of the least significant from an RP perspective (when it come to results of contests/attacks of course it can make a large difference).