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

[FormerlyHemlock]

Under 5e Bounded Accuracy, a Kobold working with a party of 9th level uberPCs could occasionally contribute meaningfully to their success.

Precisely--or a CR 0 familiar. A full 9th level PC even moreso.

Levels tend to dominate stats in 5E.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Levels tend to dominate stats in 5E.

Neither ever completely overwhelms the d20. A 20 stat is +5, a 20th level proficiency bonus is +6. If that guy rolls a 2, that's 13, and the kobold with a -2 who rolls a 17 might succeed where he just failed.

Of course, levels dominate in terms of hp/damage scaling and the sheer breadth of spells/feats/features, which is probably what you were talking about, anyway, and completely valid - but BA means any d20 roll is, well, random.

 

[FrogReaver]

Hiya!

Stats: We do 3d6, in order, switch highest with one other and switch lowest with one other (if you want). Or....we roll 4d6, keep 3 (any three you want). Or...we use my water-resistant, patent pending, lifetime guaranteed "Wheel of Pain" method (hard to describe; picture drawing a clock with no numbers; each player at the table, in turn, rolls 3d6; if roll is 10+, it goes on "12 o'clock", if 9-, it goes on "6 'o'clock"; repeat for 1/7 o'clock, 2/8 o'clock, etc; you end up with 6 pairs of high/low stats, opposite each other; players then decide, as a group, which 'pairs' they ALL want to use; The may place where they want; keep re-rolling until all low and all high 'slots' are taken).

Playing Hero's and Stat-Expectations: In my decades of play I've come to realize that some PLAYERS can play heroes, and some PLAYERS can't. I have one friend in my group who really would love to play a "true, good-hearted, altruistic hero"...but ever time he tries he fails. Miserably. Like...spectacularly badly bad. It has absolutely nothing to do with his characters stats. He, as a person, just can not 'instinctively' see the "good" path. Another friend in my group also really wants to play a hero. He does fairly well...up until the point where two things collide. One, he starts to really like his character. Two, he has to make a decision that would be detrimental to his characters well-being. And when I say "well-being", I mean in a broad sense (e.g., if he is playing a Paladin and finds a suit of +2 plate mail...then finds out he will have to give it back to the prince because it was the kings armour...he will try and find ways to delay that, or outright keep it via lying, bargaining, or otherwise obfuscating who's armor it is...all the while trying to rationalize why his actions are 'good', even though it's blatantly obvious to me and the other players that it isn't [this is the point when he starts to get frustrated with his character, because I call him out on it and he has to back down...thus, "being detrimental" to his character and thus, after a couple of these he no longer likes his character and either kills him off or tries to go full-dark-side/antipaladin).

So, it's not the stats that make a hero. It's the player. It has also been my experience that players who think they "must" have good to really good stats in order to "have fun playing a real, true hero" are ones that lack that ability to actually be a hero in the game. Sooner or later they will start to use their high stats to lord over all others (be they PC's or NPC's). They will do stuff not because it's the right thing to do, but because they are blinded by pride and hubris ("I'll do it. I'm the only one here capable of pulling it off...even though it may very well be my death. I'll go so that you guys don't die" <-- may be an altruistic statement...but it's hardly "heroic" if the 'hero' has to inform the people he is saving of how inferior they are to him).

Stats, overall, just don't matter much at ALL when it comes to being a true hero...that fall squarely and completely on the Player himself or herself.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

I think the hero that rubs it in all the NPC's faces and occasionly takes a jab at the other characters may actually be pretty entertaining. Played correctly the smug hero who thinks he's better than everyone and rubs it in their faces could be hilarious!

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Neither ever completely overwhelms the d20. A 20 stat is +5, a 20th level proficiency bonus is +6. If that guy rolls a 2, that's 13, and the kobold with a -2 who rolls a 17 might succeed where he just failed.

Of course, levels dominate in terms of hp/damage scaling and the sheer breadth of spells/feats/features, which is probably what you were talking about, anyway, and completely valid - but BA means any d20 roll is, well, random.

Yes, this part in bold. For example, with the kobold, I thought you were referring to its roleplaying and tactical options (including Cower to give everyone advantage, if it's that kind of kobold) and not anything relating to the size of any given bonus or "overwhelming the d20".

Casting Arcane Eye is valuable and does not involve a d20 roll. No amount of d20 rolling will let you turn into a bird--for that you need wildshape/polymorph. Etc.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Why isn't it a problem for a wannabe Achilles when, through no fault of your own, your character sheet says your have a Strength lower than 20 and a level of 1?

There's a difference between "not having 20 Strength" and "not having a Strength that's even remotely noteworthy". A mighty warrior doesn't need the maximum, but he should probably have at least a 15 or 16 so he can, y'know, do strong person things. It'd be pretty annoying for the player of our 11-Str Achilles if the party wizard who had no interest in any feats of physical might but happened to roll a 13 was better at kicking down doors than he.

If you can accept that Achilles has to do some mighty deeds before he can be a 20th level fighter, why can't you accept that he has to do mighty deeds before becoming inhumanly strong (Str 20)?

You know, you suggest a wonderful idea. Why don't we roll dice to determine starting level just like we roll to determine starting Strength? After all, not everybody in the world has the same amount of training and experience. Surely if it's annoying to you for the whole party to have similar ability scores, it must be all the more annoying to you for the whole party to have exactly the same level. And if it's cool for Lady Fortuna to decide whether you can be a strong character immediately or whether you have to wait for eight to twelve levels, surely it's even cooler for Lady Fortuna to decide how long you have to wait for other aspects of your character fantasy as well. Right?

 

[TheCosmicKid]

How is it no fault of your own if you knew it was going to be random chargen when you sat down? Just say 'no.' Find another table where the DM will let you play a character you actually want to play - at least will let you put your highest random-rolled stat in STR or give you a mulligan if that highest rolled stat is 11...

Yes, that is pretty much my point. If players have particular characters in mind, DMs should let them play those characters. Or else they'll have either unhappy players or empty seats at their table.

 

[FrogReaver]

There's a difference between "not having 20 Strength" and "not having a Strength that's even remotely noteworthy". A mighty warrior doesn't need the maximum, but he should probably have at least a 15 or 16 so he can, y'know, do strong person things. It'd be pretty annoying for the player of our 11-Str Achilles if the party wizard who had no interest in any feats of physical might but happened to roll a 13 was better at kicking down doors than he.

You know, you suggest a wonderful idea. Why don't we roll dice to determine starting level just like we roll to determine starting Strength? After all, not everybody in the world has the same amount of training and experience. Surely if it's annoying to you for the whole party to have similar ability scores, it must be all the more annoying to you for the whole party to have exactly the same level. And if it's cool for Lady Fortuna to decide whether you can be a strong character immediately or whether you have to wait for eight to twelve levels, surely it's even cooler for Lady Fortuna to decide how long you have to wait for other aspects of your character fantasy as well. Right?

You kind of left the ballpark with that last analogy. Though it's not totally your fault. Hemlcok's argument was absurd enough to deserve an absurd response!

 

[Tony Vargas]

It'd be pretty annoying for the player of our 11-Str Achilles if the party wizard who had no interest in any feats of physical might but happened to roll a 13 was better at kicking down doors than he.

That happened, sorta. A fighter ended up with his highest stat a 13 STR, the Cleric's was higher, the doors in the dungeon they were exploring required a DC 10 check if you didn't have a minimum STR, the fighter needed to roll, the Cleric didn't. The fighter also had protection style, and it never once made a difference - either I rolled both dice low or both high, as it turned out, every time.

Didn't stop the player from enjoying playing D&D again after ~30 years away from the game, though.

You know, you suggest a wonderful idea. Why don't we roll dice to determine starting level just like we roll to determine starting Strength?

Don't laugh, but the first time I played Basic D&D we made just that mistake.

I rolled a 4.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

That happened, sorta. A fighter ended up with his highest stat a 13 STR, the Cleric's was higher, the doors in the dungeon they were exploring required a DC 10 check if you didn't have a minimum STR, the fighter needed to roll, the Cleric didn't. The fighter also had protection style, and it never once made a difference - either I rolled both dice low or both high, as it turned out, every time.

Didn't stop the player from enjoying playing D&D again after ~30 years away from the game, though.

That's wonderful. I'm certainly not saying that all fighters have to be super-strong or else all players will be miserable. If the player is buying into their modestly-powered warrior, great! But if the player has the fantasy in their head of being the mighty-thewed swordsman or -woman, and they end up in such a situation, then they are hardly whiny or entitled or unjustified in thinking, "Hey, something's not right here, this game's not giving me the experience I want, maybe I should just go play Morrowind where I won't have this problem."

Don't laugh, but the first time I played Basic D&D we made just that mistake.

I rolled a 4.

Ouch. You said not to laugh, so I'll give XP instead.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

There's a difference between "not having 20 Strength" and "not having a Strength that's even remotely noteworthy". A mighty warrior doesn't need the maximum, but he should probably have at least a 15 or 16 so he can, y'know, do strong person things. It'd be pretty annoying for the player of our 11-Str Achilles if the party wizard who had no interest in any feats of physical might but happened to roll a 13 was better at kicking down doors than he.

You're being obtuse. Neither 11, nor 15, nor 16 fully realizes the Achilles character concept.

Besides, PHB says you can justify low scores any way you like. If you want to play Achilles from Str 11 on up, just explain his "low" Strength by making him an infant or a toddler. By the time he's an adult he might have Str 28 and a dozen epic boons, but a toddler who's better than the average grown man at kicking in doors is already pretty impressive, even if some burly wizards happen to also be slightly stronger.

You know, you suggest a wonderful idea. Why don't we roll dice to determine starting level just like we roll to determine starting Strength? After all, not everybody in the world has the same amount of training and experience. Surely if it's annoying to you for the whole party to have similar ability scores, it must be all the more annoying to you for the whole party to have exactly the same level. And if it's cool for Lady Fortuna to decide whether you can be a strong character immediately or whether you have to wait for eight to twelve levels, surely it's even cooler for Lady Fortuna to decide how long you have to wait for other aspects of your character fantasy as well. Right?

You were being sarcastic but it actually is a pretty good idea. In fact, I do this sometimes actually when I'm DMing. But there are concrete things about the low levels that I enjoy as a player, and don't want players to miss out on, so in any campaign intended to be lengthy I keep the variance small, typically "roll 1d3 for your level."

If I were doing the sort of campaign where replacement PCs are brought in at high level, I'd roll larger dice.